Agenda packet — Santa Ana City Council, May 5, 2026 (part 10 of 13)

CUPA Facility Listing
Cupa facility list.

Date of Government Version: 10/16/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/13/2012
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: Public Health Department
Telephone: 530-538-7149
Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CALVERAS COUNTY:

CUPA Facility Listing
Cupa Facility Listing
Date of Government Version: 04/16/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Calveras County Environmental Health
Telephone: 209-754-6399
Last EDR Contact: 06/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
COLUSA COUNTY:

TC3650048.1s Page GR-28

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1901 5/5/2026
CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list.

Date of Government Version: 01/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/14/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Health & Human Services
Telephone: 530-458-0396
Last EDR Contact: 06/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:

Site List
List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs.

Date of Government Version: 04/09/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/10/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department
Telephone: 925-646-2286
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
DEL NORTE COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa Facility list
Date of Government Version: 01/09/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/10/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Del Norte County Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 707-465-0426
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EL DORADO COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 05/20/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: El Dorado County Environmental Management Department Telephone: 530-621-6623
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FRESNO COUNTY:

CUPA Resources List
Certified Unified Program Agency. CUPA’s are responsible for implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management regulatory program. The agency provides oversight of businesses that deal with hazardous materials, operate underground storage tanks or aboveground storage tanks.

Date of Government Version: 03/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2013
Number of Days to Update: 30
Source: Dept. of Community Health
Telephone: 559-445-3271
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
HUMBOLDT COUNTY:

TC3650048.1s Page GR-29

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1902 5/5/2026
CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 03/15/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/19/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 8
Source: Humboldt County Environmental Health
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
IMPERIAL COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list.

Date of Government Version: 05/01/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/02/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2012
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: San Diego Border Field Office
Telephone: 760-339-2777
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INYO COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list.

Date of Government Version: 06/26/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/27/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/17/2012
Number of Days to Update: 51
Source: Inyo County Environmental Health Services
Telephone: 760-878-0238
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
KERN COUNTY:

Underground Storage Tank Sites & Tank Listing
Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing.

Date of Government Version: 08/31/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/01/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/30/2010
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Kern County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 661-862-8700
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
KINGS COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
A listing of sites included in the county?s Certified Unified Program Agency database. California?s Secretary for Environmental Protection established the unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulatory program as required by chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Unified Program consolidates the administration, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities.

Date of Government Version: 02/12/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/21/2013
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Kings County Department of Public Health
Telephone: 559-584-1411
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LAKE COUNTY:

TC3650048.1s Page GR-30

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1903 5/5/2026
CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 01/23/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/25/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 33
Source: Lake County Environmental Health
Telephone: 707-263-1164
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LOS ANGELES COUNTY:

San Gabriel Valley Areas of Concern
San Gabriel Valley areas where VOC contamination is at or above the MCL as designated by region 9 EPA office.

Date of Government Version: 03/30/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/23/2009
Number of Days to Update: 206
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: 415-972-3178
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/01/2013
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HMS: Street Number List
Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites.

Date of Government Version: 10/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: Department of Public Works
Telephone: 626-458-3517
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities in Los Angeles County.

Date of Government Version: 04/24/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 23
Source: La County Department of Public Works
Telephone: 818-458-5185
Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
City of Los Angeles Landfills
Landfills owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles.

Date of Government Version: 03/05/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2009
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Engineering & Construction Division
Telephone: 213-473-7869
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/02/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Site Mitigation List
Industrial sites that have had some sort of spill or complaint.

Date of Government Version: 01/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 32
Source: Community Health Services
Telephone: 323-890-7806
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank
Underground storage tank sites located in El Segundo city.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-31

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1904 5/5/2026
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 18
Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department
Telephone: 310-524-2236
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank
Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Long Beach.

Date of Government Version: 03/28/2003
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/23/2003
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/26/2003
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department
Telephone: 562-570-2563
Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank
Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Torrance.

Date of Government Version: 04/15/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 31
Source: City of Torrance Fire Department
Telephone: 310-618-2973
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
MADERA COUNTY:

Date of Government Version: 04/15/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 31
Source: Madera County Environmental Health
Telephone: 559-675-7823
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
MARIN COUNTY:

Underground Storage Tank Sites
Currently permitted USTs in Marin County.

Date of Government Version: 11/26/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/28/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/21/2013
Number of Days to Update: 54
Source: Public Works Department Waste Management
Telephone: 415-499-6647
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
MERCED COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 05/28/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: Merced County Environmental Health
Telephone: 209-381-1094
Last EDR Contact: 02/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
MONO COUNTY:

TC3650048.1s Page GR-32

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1905 5/5/2026
CUPA Facility List
CUPA Facility List
Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/08/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 17
Source: Mono County Health Department
Telephone: 760-932-5580
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/16/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
MONTEREY COUNTY:

CUPA Facility Listing
CUPA Program listing from the Environmental Health Division.

Date of Government Version: 03/14/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12
Source: Monterey County Health Department
Telephone: 831-796-1297
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NAPA COUNTY:

Sites With Reported Contamination
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Napa county.

Date of Government Version: 12/05/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/06/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/07/2012
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/16/2013
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites
Underground storage tank sites located in Napa county.

Date of Government Version: 01/15/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2008
Number of Days to Update: 23
Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/16/2013
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
NEVADA COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 03/08/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/08/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 17
Source: Community Development Agency
Telephone: 530-265-1467
Last EDR Contact: 05/17/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ORANGE COUNTY:

List of Industrial Site Cleanups
Petroleum and non-petroleum spills.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-33

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1906 5/5/2026
Date of Government Version: 05/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/12/2013
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: Health Care Agency
Telephone: 714-834-3446
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups
Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 05/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 41
Source: Health Care Agency
Telephone: 714-834-3446
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST).

Master List of Facilities
List includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites.

Date of Government Version: 03/12/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/13/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 14
Source: Placer County Health and Human Services
Telephone: 530-745-2363
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/23/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:

Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites
Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 04/23/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17/2013
Number of Days to Update: 23
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 951-358-5055
Last EDR Contact: 06/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/07/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Underground Storage Tank Tank List
Underground storage tank sites located in Riverside county.

Date of Government Version: 04/23/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2013
Number of Days to Update: 22
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 951-358-5055
Last EDR Contact: 06/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/07/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SACRAMENTO COUNTY:

TC3650048.1s Page GR-34

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1907 5/5/2026
Toxic Site Clean-Up List
List of sites where unauthorized releases of potentially hazardous materials have occurred.

Date of Government Version: 02/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/11/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 33
Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management
Telephone: 916-875-8406
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Master Hazardous Materials Facility List
Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators.

Date of Government Version: 02/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/12/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management
Telephone: 916-875-8406
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY:

Hazardous Material Permits
This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers.

Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 20
Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387-3041
Last EDR Contact: 05/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

Hazardous Materials Management Division Database
The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment ’H’ permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non-tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.)
Date of Government Version: 08/17/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/20/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/03/2012
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division
Telephone: 619-338-2268
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/23/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Solid Waste Facilities
San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities.

Date of Government Version: 10/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/06/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/30/2012
Number of Days to Update: 24
Source: Department of Health Services
Telephone: 619-338-2209
Last EDR Contact: 04/26/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3650048.1s Page GR-35

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1908 5/5/2026
Environmental Case Listing
The listing contains all underground tank release cases and projects pertaining to properties contaminated with hazardous substances that are actively under review by the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program.

Date of Government Version: 03/23/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/15/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/09/2010
Number of Days to Update: 24
Source: San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Telephone: 619-338-2371
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/23/2013
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY:

Local Oversite Facilities
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county.

Date of Government Version: 09/19/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/19/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2008
Number of Days to Update: 10
Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415-252-3920
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Underground Storage Tank Information
Underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county.

Date of Government Version: 11/29/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/15/2011
Number of Days to Update: 5
Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 415-252-3920
Last EDR Contact: 05/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:

San Joaquin Co. UST
A listing of underground storage tank locations in San Joaquin county.

Date of Government Version: 03/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/25/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2013
Number of Days to Update: 24
Source: Environmental Health Department
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/07/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa Facility List.

Date of Government Version: 02/26/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department Telephone: 805-781-5596
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SAN MATEO COUNTY:

Business Inventory
List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-36

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1909 5/5/2026
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/10/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921
Last EDR Contact: 06/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Fuel Leak List
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Mateo county.

Date of Government Version: 03/18/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/19/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 8
Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921
Last EDR Contact: 06/17/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY:

CUPA Facility Listing
CUPA Program Listing from the Environmental Health Services division.

Date of Government Version: 09/08/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/09/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/07/2011
Number of Days to Update: 28
Source: Santa Barbara County Public Health Department
Telephone: 805-686-8167
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SANTA CLARA COUNTY:

Cupa Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 20
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 408-918-1973
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/16/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
HIST LUST - Fuel Leak Site Activity Report
A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no longer updated by the county.

Leaking underground storage tanks are now handled by the Department of Environmental Health.

Date of Government Version: 03/29/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/30/2005
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/21/2005
Number of Days to Update: 22
Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Telephone: 408-265-2600
Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
LOP Listing
A listing of leaking underground storage tanks located in Santa Clara county.

Date of Government Version: 03/04/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/06/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 19
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 408-918-3417
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/16/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Hazardous Material Facilities
Hazardous material facilities, including underground storage tank sites.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-37

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1910 5/5/2026
Date of Government Version: 05/16/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/17/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: City of San Jose Fire Department
Telephone: 408-535-7694
Last EDR Contact: 05/13/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/26/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility listing.

Date of Government Version: 05/28/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 29
Source: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health
Telephone: 831-464-2761
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SHASTA COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa Facility List.

Date of Government Version: 03/15/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/15/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 12
Source: Shasta County Department of Resource Management Telephone: 530-225-5789
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SOLANO COUNTY:

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Solano county.

Date of Government Version: 03/20/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/28/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 47
Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-784-6770
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tank sites located in Solano county.

Date of Government Version: 03/20/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/28/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-784-6770
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SONOMA COUNTY:

Cupa Facility List
Cupa Facility list
Date of Government Version: 04/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 41
Source: County of Sonoma Fire & Emergency Services Department Telephone: 707-565-1174
Last EDR Contact: 06/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC3650048.1s Page GR-38

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1911 5/5/2026
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Sonoma county.

Date of Government Version: 04/02/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2013
Number of Days to Update: 41
Source: Department of Health Services
Telephone: 707-565-6565
Last EDR Contact: 06/25/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SUTTER COUNTY:

Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tank sites located in Sutter county.

Date of Government Version: 03/13/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/14/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 13
Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture
Telephone: 530-822-7500
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/23/2013
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
TUOLUMNE COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 01/14/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/16/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 42
Source: Divison of Environmental Health
Telephone: 209-533-5633
Last EDR Contact: 05/15/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies
VENTURA COUNTY:

Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank (T) information.

Date of Government Version: 04/26/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/22/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/02/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites
Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites.

Date of Government Version: 12/01/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/19/2012
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/22/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites
Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 05/29/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/24/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2008
Number of Days to Update: 37
Source: Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 02/18/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/03/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC3650048.1s Page GR-39

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1912 5/5/2026
Medical Waste Program List
To protect public health and safety and the environment from potential exposure to disease causing agents, the Environmental Health Division Medical Waste Program regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment and disposal of medical waste throughout the County.

Date of Government Version: 01/28/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/20/2013
Number of Days to Update: 47
Source: Ventura County Resource Management Agency
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 06/11/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/12/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Underground Tank Closed Sites List
Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List.

Date of Government Version: 03/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/28/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 46
Source: Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
YOLO COUNTY:

Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report
Underground storage tank sites located in Yolo county.

Date of Government Version: 03/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/29/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/13/2013
Number of Days to Update: 45
Source: Yolo County Department of Health
Telephone: 530-666-8646
Last EDR Contact: 06/07/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/07/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
YUBA COUNTY:

CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility listing for Yuba County.

Date of Government Version: 05/24/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/24/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 34
Source: Yuba County Environmental Health Department
Telephone: 530-749-7523
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Varies

OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.

CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility.

Date of Government Version: 05/20/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/21/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/27/2013
Number of Days to Update: 37
Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375
Last EDR Contact: 05/21/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/02/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC3650048.1s Page GR-40

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1913 5/5/2026
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/19/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/28/2012
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/29/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility.

Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/07/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/15/2013
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Telephone: 518-402-8651
Last EDR Contact: 05/09/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/23/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012
Number of Days to Update: 57
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-8990
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/05/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/22/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2012
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: Department of Environmental Management
Telephone: 401-222-2797
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/09/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/19/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/27/2012
Number of Days to Update: 70
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/14/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/30/2013
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines.

Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: Rextag Strategies Corp.

Telephone: (281) 769-2247
U.S. Electric Transmission and Power Plants Systems Digital GIS Data Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.

AHA Hospitals:

Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.

Telephone: 312-280-5991
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association’s annual survey of hospitals.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-41

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1914 5/5/2026
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: 410-786-3000
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: 301-594-6248
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.

Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states.

Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on private school locations in the United States.

Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities
Source: Department of Social Services
Telephone: 916-657-4041
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Scanned Digital USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (DRG)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.

STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.

TC3650048.1s Page GR-42

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1915 5/5/2026

APPENDIX F
Resumes
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1916 5/5/2026
Robert Olsen, R.G., R.E.A.

Senior Geologist
Education
M.S., Geology, University of Oregon
B.S., Geology, University of California, Los Angeles
Registrations
Registered Geologist, CA, 1990
Registered Environmental Assessor, CA, 1992
Registered Environmental Assessor II, 2001
OSHA HAZWOPER, 40 Hours and Current 8-Hour Refresher
Professional Affiliations
National Groundwater Association
South Coast Geological Society
Years of Experience (updated 4/08)
With AECOM: 15
With other firms: 24
Experience
Mr. Olsen has over 30 years of experience as a geologist and hydrogeologist in the fields of environmental consulting, petroleum exploration and groundwater resource development. He has managed projects including geological and hydrogeological investigations, drilling and monitoring well installation, environmental site assessments, borehole geophysical logging, geotechnical sampling, aquifer tests, and subsurface mapping. In addition, Mr. Olsen has served as liaison with regulatory agencies to determine the applicable regulations that apply to property transfer site assessments, soil and groundwater characterization studies, and uncontrolled releases.

Selected Projects
U.S. Navy Landfill, San Clemente Island, CA. Senior Project Geologist for the preparation of a Solid Waste Assessment Test Workplan for a landfill that had previously not been evaluated for its potential for leachate generation; installed soil borings and lysimeters using hollow-stem auger and air-percussion drilling rigs; sampled lysimeters; prepared Solid Waste Assessment Test report for submittal to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Contamination Site, Visalia, CA. Project Geologist for site investigation at a major TCE contamination site in Central California. Project included the organization and implementation of a domestic well sampling program, investigation and abandonment of a dry well system, plume characterization, site history research, pilot soil vapor extraction system installation, groundwater and soil sampling, and the drilling and installation of groundwater-monitoring and groundwaterextraction wells.

Naval Station San Diego, CA. Project Manager responsible for analyzing the results of past investigations at 10 underground storage tank facilities where unauthorized releases were suspected to have occurred. He determined the locations of planned groundwater monitoring wells, prepared the Work Plans and Health and Safety Plans for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments in accordance with applicable state, local, and Navy regulations, and interpreted the results of geotechnical testing to determine the design of future monitoring wells and remediation by vapor extraction.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1917 5/5/2026
Private and Public Clients, California - Nevada – Arizona. Project Manager for numerous Phase II Environmental Site Assessments at commercial and industrial sites where soil and/or ground water contamination was known or suspected. Prepared Workplans and Health and Safety Plans as required; maintained liaison with regulatory agencies; supervised drilling, field observations of indications of contamination, and the collection of soil and ground water samples; interpreted the results of laboratory analyses; and prepared reports with recommendations for site closure, further investigation or remediation, as appropriate.

Service Station, Anaheim, CA. Project Geologist performing Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II remediation at a service station where a piping leak had resulted in soil and ground water contamination by gasoline; installed ground water monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells, and soil borings; evaluated remedial alternatives; monitored the operation of a vapor extraction system; supervised the remediation of contaminated soil by pattern drilling; coordinated activities with City agencies when the contaminated part of the site was condemned for street widening.

Proposed School Sites, Chula Vista and Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Performed Preliminary Endangerment Assessments at sites where former agricultural lands were to be redeveloped for elementary and magnet school use; prepared Workplans, Health and Safety Plans, and Quality Assurance Project Plans; coordinated with school districts and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to ensure that the project were completed in a timely manner and approved for school development.

Former Aerospace Research and Testing Facility, San Diego, CA. Performed Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment at a former rocket testing and research facility that was to be redeveloped for residential housing; researched and tested for the potential impact of perchlorate releases to surface soils.

South Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project, Orange County, California: Produced the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Technical Report, a CEQA/NEPA document describing potential hazardous-materials concerns associated with the proposed extension of State Route 273 from Irvine to San Clemente. Evaluated existing potentially contaminated sites and the impacts to the environmental from the construction and operation of the proposed toll road. Applied the information obtained from the Technical Report study to the review and evaluation of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Environmental Impact Report for the project.

Proposed Private High School Site, Yorba Linda, California: Performed file review, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and a soil vapor survey on the site of a proposed Christian high school located in an area of historical oil production and citrus orchards. Conferred with and advised client’s legal representatives regarding appropriate inquiries to be the equivalent of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment if the site were eligible for Department of Toxic Substances Control Supervision. Testified before City Planning Commission and City Council regarding findings and the suitability of the site for the intended use.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1918 5/5/2026
David L. Simon
Project Engineer
Professional History
Education
BS, Chemical Engineering,
University of Maryland
Registrations

EIT, CA
Asbestos Consultant, CA
Registered Environmental
Assessor, CA
Years of Experience
With AECOM 10
With other firms 14
Training and Certifications
NIOSH 582
OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste
Operations Training
OSHA 8-hour Hazardous Waste
Operations Site Supervisor
Training
Registered Environmental
Assessor - REA 1
AHERA Asbestos
Contractor/Supervisor
AHERA Asbestos Management
Planner
AHERA Asbestos Building
Inspector
AHERA Asbestos Project
Designer
CA Certified Asbestos Consultant
Mr. Simon has 24 years of environmental experience providing environmental consulting services on various projects including Phase I, Phase II, remedial investigation and feasibility studies, and asbestos and lead-based paint identification and abatement activities.

Experience
Kidd and Company, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Multiple Sites. Project manager for Phase I ESAs at 21 sites as part of the due diligence Kidd and Company is performing prior to purchasing a number of oil product warehouse and distribution companies. Managing site reconnaissance, a regulatory database review, and historical resources review for each property, plus review of existing Phase I ESA reports at two of the sites.

Capital Automotive LP, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, 13 Cities, US and Canada. Project manager for Phase I ESAs as part of due diligence prior to purchase of 14 auto auction facilities. Managed updates for the 13 previous Phase I ESA reports and a new Phase I ESA for the 14th site.

Los Angeles Unified School District, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Los Angeles, California. Conducting Phase I ESAs to evaluate current and previous site conditions at five proposed school sites:

Elizabeth Street, Norwood Elementary School, West 68th Street, South Gate High School, South Street Elementary, and South Park Elementary.

Evaluating historical uses and condition of the property and any off-site facilities of interest.

California Judicial Council, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Southern California. Project manager for Phase I ESAs in Fontana, Lompoc, Long Beach, Needles, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Solvang, and Victorville. Manages site reconnaissance, a regulatory database review, and historical resources review as part of due diligence prior to the state's taking responsibility for the county courthouses.

Washington Mutual, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Southern California. Project manager for Phase I ESAs including site reconnaissance, a regulatory database review, and historical resources review as part of due diligence prior to financing properties in Alhambra, Anaheim, Bakersfield, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Carson, Compton, Corona, Costa Mesa, Covina, Cypress, Glendale, Harbor City, Inglewood, Irvine, LaHabra, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Lynwood, North Hollywood, Rosemead, San Diego, San Dimas, Santa Monica, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Sun Valley, Stockton, Temecula, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Upton, Ventura, Vernon, and West Hollywood.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1919 5/5/2026
RLA Advisors, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Phoenix, Arizona, and Carlsbad, Carson, Covina, El Monte, Glendale, Irvine, Long Beach, San Diego, and San Jose, California. Project manager for Phase I ESAs as part of due diligence prior to redeveloping or financing various office buildings, garages, and warehouses in California and an apartment complex in Phoenix.

Los Angeles World Airports, Phase II Site Assessment, Van Nuys, California. Project manager for a Phase II environmental site assessment at a former military hangar facility. Coordinated with airport personnel, subcontractors and technicians to complete scope of work designed to determine extent of previously identified petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and to identify unknown powder substance in the soil.

Identified and marked sample locations for utility clearance. Oversaw field activities and sample collection. Prepared sampling report, including GPS coordinates for sampling locations. Obtained closure from lead regulatory agency.

Various Clients, Phase I Site Assessments, Western United States.

Project manager for more than 550 Phase I site assessments, primarily in California, at gasoline stations, manufacturing facilities, commercial buildings, facilities with underground storage tanks and clarifiers, dry cleaners, and agricultural facilities. Determined scopes of work, coordinated project tasks, conducted site reconnaissance, identified hazardous materials and petroleum products concerns (such as PCBs, asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint, USTs, and ASTs), conducted historical site and vicinity review (including review of historic aerial photographs, historic maps, and building permits), reviewed agency database information to assess potential contamination at the subject property and potential impact to the subject property by surrounding sites, contacted appropriate government agencies, and summarized the information obtained during the Phase I investigation into a final report for submission to the client.

Various Clients, Phase II Investigations, Western United States.

Project manager for more than 30 Phase II investigations as follow-up to potential contamination discovered during Phase I investigations.

Identified the existence of former USTs with no formal closure. Prepared scopes of work, prepared work plans, provided oversight of field operations, conducted data review and interpretation, and prepared reports.

Various Clients, Asbestos and lead paint Surveys, Multiple Locations. Project manager and field supervisor for surveys to identify the locations of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Provided oversight of contractor work practices, monitoring, notifications, and report preparation for high-rise office buildings, educational facilities, apartment buildings, commercial properties, industrial and warehouse properties, and historical structures.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1920 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N8

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- FRUIT STREET SHOPS EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1921 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1922 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1923 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1924 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1925 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1926 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1927 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1928 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1929 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1930 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1931 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1932 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1933 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1934 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1935 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1936 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1937 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1938 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1939 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1940 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1941 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1942 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1943 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1944 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1945 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1946 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1947 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1948 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1949 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1950 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1951 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1952 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1953 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1954 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1955 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1956 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1957 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1958 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1959 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1960 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1961 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1962 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1963 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1964 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1965 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1966 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1967 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1968 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1969 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1970 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1971 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1972 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1973 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1974 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1975 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1976 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1977 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1978 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1979 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1980 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1981 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1982 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1983 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1984 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1985 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1986 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1987 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1988 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1989 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1990 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1991 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1992 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1993 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1994 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1995 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1996 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1997 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1998 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 1999 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2000 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2001 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2002 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2003 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2004 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2005 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2006 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2007 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2008 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2009 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2010 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2011 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2012 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2013 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2014 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2015 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2016 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2017 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2018 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2019 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2020 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2021 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2022 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2023 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2024 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2025 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2026 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2027 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2028 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2029 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2030 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2031 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2032 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2033 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2034 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2035 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2036 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2037 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2038 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2039 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2040 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2041 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2042 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2043 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2044 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2045 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2046 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2047 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2048 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2049 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2050 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2051 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2052 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2053 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2054 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2055 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2056 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2057 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2058 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2059 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2060 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2061 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2062 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2063 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2064 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2065 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2066 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2067 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2068 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2069 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2070 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2071 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2072 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2073 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2074 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2075 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2076 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2077 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2078 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2079 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2080 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2081 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2082 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2083 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2084 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2085 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2086 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2087 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2088 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2089 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2090 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2091 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2092 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2093 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2094 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2095 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2096 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2097 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2098 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2099 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2100 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2101 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2102 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2103 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2104 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2105 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2106 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2107 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2108 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2109 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2110 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2111 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2112 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2113 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2114 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2115 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2116 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2117 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2118 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2119 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2120 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2121 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2122 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2123 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2124 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2125 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2126 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2127 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2128 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2129 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2130 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2131 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2132 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2133 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2134 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2135 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2136 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2137 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2138 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2139 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2140 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2141 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2142 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2143 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2144 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2145 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2146 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2147 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2148 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2149 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2150 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2151 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2152 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2153 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2154 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2155 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2156 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2157 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2158 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2159 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2160 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2161 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2162 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2163 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2164 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2165 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2166 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2167 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2168 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2169 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2170 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2171 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2172 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2173 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2174 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2175 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2176 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2177 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2178 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2179 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2180 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2181 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2182 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2183 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2184 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2185 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2186 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2187 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2188 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2189 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2190 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2191 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2192 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2193 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2194 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2195 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2196 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2197 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2198 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2199 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2200 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2201 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2202 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2203 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2204 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2205 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2206 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2207 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2208 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2209 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2210 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2211 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2212 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2213 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2214 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2215 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2216 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2217 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2218 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2219 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2220 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2221 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2222 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2223 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2224 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2225 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2226 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2227 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2228 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2229 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2230 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2231 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2232 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2233 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2234 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2235 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2236 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2237 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2238 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2239 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2240 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2241 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2242 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2243 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2244 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2245 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2246 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2247 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2248 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2249 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2250 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2251 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2252 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2253 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2254 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2255 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2256 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2257 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2258 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2259 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2260 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2261 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2262 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2263 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2264 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2265 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2266 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2267 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2268 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2269 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2270 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2271 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2272 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2273 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2274 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2275 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2276 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2277 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2278 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2279 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2280 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2281 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2282 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2283 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2284 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2285 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2286 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2287 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2288 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2289 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2290 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2291 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2292 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2293 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2294 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2295 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2296 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2297 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2298 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2299 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2300 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2301 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2302 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2303 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2304 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2305 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2306 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2307 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2308 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2309 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2310 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2311 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2312 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2313 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2314 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2315 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2316 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2317 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2318 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2319 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2320 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2321 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2322 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2323 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2324 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2325 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2326 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2327 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2328 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2329 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2330 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2331 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2332 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2333 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2334 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2335 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2336 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2337 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2338 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2339 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2340 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2341 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2342 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2343 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2344 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2345 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2346 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2347 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2348 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2349 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2350 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2351 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2352 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2353 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2354 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2355 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2356 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2357 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2358 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2359 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2360 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2361 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2362 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2363 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2364 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2365 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2366 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2367 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2368 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2369 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2370 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2371 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2372 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2373 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2374 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2375 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2376 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2377 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2378 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2379 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2380 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2381 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2382 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2383 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2384 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2385 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2386 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2387 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2388 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2389 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2390 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2391 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2392 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2393 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2394 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2395 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2396 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2397 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2398 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2399 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2400 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2401 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2402 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N9

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- FRUIT STREET SHOPS EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2403 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2404 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2405 5/5/2026

TABLE OF ONTENTS
Section Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 USER RELIANCE ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY................................................................................................. 3

2.1 TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................... 4

3.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 11 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 12 TABLES
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF BORING LOCATIONS
TABLE 2: ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM SOIL SAMPLING – TPH AND VOCS TABLE 3: ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM SOIL GAS SAMPLING – VOCS

APPENDICES
A – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH BORING LOCATIONS
B – GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT

C -- SOIL BORING LOGS

D -- LABORATORY REPORTS

E -- COMPILATION
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2406 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2407 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2408 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2409 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2410 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2411 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2412 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2413 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2414 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2415 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2416 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2417 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2418 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2419 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2420 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2421 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2422 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2423 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2424 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2425 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2426 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2427 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2428 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2429 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2430 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2431 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2432 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2433 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2434 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2435 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2436 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2437 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2438 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2439 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2440 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2441 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2442 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2443 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2444 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2445 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2446 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2447 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2448 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2449 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2450 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2451 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2452 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2453 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2454 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2455 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2456 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2457 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2458 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2459 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2460 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2461 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2462 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2463 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2464 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2465 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2466 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2467 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2468 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2469 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2470 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2471 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2472 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2473 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2474 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2475 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2476 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2477 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2478 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2479 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2480 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2481 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2482 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2483 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2484 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2485 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2486 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2487 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2488 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2489 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2490 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2491 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2492 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2493 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2494 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2495 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2496 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2497 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2498 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2499 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2500 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2501 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2502 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2503 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2504 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2505 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2506 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2507 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2508 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2509 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2510 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2511 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2512 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2513 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2514 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2515 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2516 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2517 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2518 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2519 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2520 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2521 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2522 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2523 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2524 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2525 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2526 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2527 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2528 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2529 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2530 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2531 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2532 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2533 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2534 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2535 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2536 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2537 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2538 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2539 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2540 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2541 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2542 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2543 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2544 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2545 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2546 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2547 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2548 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2549 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2550 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2551 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2552 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2553 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2554 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2555 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2556 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2557 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2558 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2559 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2560 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2561 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2562 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2563 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2564 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2565 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2566 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2567 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2568 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2569 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2570 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2571 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N10

WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2572 5/5/2026

Page 1 of 17 ends

Water Quality Memorandum

1. Project Description
The project site is situated on Santa Ana Boulevard, from Santiago Street to I-5 Southbound exit ramp, in the City of Santa Ana. The project will grade separate Santa Ana Boulevard at the current Metrolink Railroad crossing on Lincoln Avenue. Major works include road widening from Santiago Street to Fuller Street, reconstruction of Fuller Street intersection, bridge construction for Lincoln Avenue, and local street reconstruction on Logan Street. The other construction activities will include reconstruction of the private parking lots, slope/retaining wall construction, and reconstruction of the landscaped median.

The approximate project site area is 5 acres and the existing imperviousness is estimated at 95%.

Based on the preliminary layout, right-of-way acquisition is anticipated on the east side of the project site. The Net New Impervious Area (NNIA) is anticipated to be 0.35 acres.

Since a portion of the street will be depressed, a pump station is proposed to collect the surface flow at the sump. The pump station will tie into the current storm drain system near the project site for discharge purposes. Bioswales would also be incorporated as water quality treatment device. The detail design and location will be included in the project WQMP.

In anticipation of the water quality requirements, the project will include project specific construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented in order to protect the receiving water from potential and expected pollutants of concern. Post-construction Best Management Practices include Site Design BMPs, Source Control BMPs, and Treatment Control BMPs. These BMPs will be incorporated to meet or exceed the requirements of the NPDES permit.

Detailed design of post-construction BMPs will be provided during the final engineering phase.

2. Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal Laws and Requirements
Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to water of the United States (U.S.) from any point-source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. Known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress has amended it several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point-sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme.

Relevant CWA sections are as follows:
• Section 401 requires that an applicant must obtain a certification from the state that all water discharge will comply with the various provisions of the CWA. This certification must be presented to Project Name Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Water Quality project Owner City of Santa Ana
Date Oct 18, 2012
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2573 5/5/2026

Page 2 of 17 ends

the licensing or permitting agency when an applicant seeks to obtain a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the U.S. • Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharge (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Within California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer this permitting program. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). • Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water.” USACE issues two types of 404 permits: Standard and General Permits. There are two types of General Permits: Regional Permits and Nationwide Permits. Regional Permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide Permits are issued to authorize a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.

There are also two types of Standard Permits: Individual Permits and Letters of Permission.

Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of USACE’s Standard Permits. For Standard Permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (USEPA Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 40 Part 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines were developed by USEPA in conjunction with USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (water(s) of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that USACE may not issue a permit if there is a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have less effect on water(s) of the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. Per the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause “significant degradation” to water(s) of the U.S. In addition, every permit from USACE, even if not subject to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4.

National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The NFIP is a federal program administered by the Flood Insurance Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It enables individuals who have property within the 100- year floodplain to purchase insurance against flood losses. Community participation and eligibility, flood hazard identification, mapping, and floodplain management aspects are administered by state and local programs, and support directorate within FEMA. FEMA works with the states and local communities to identify flood hazard areas, and publishes a flood hazard boundary map of those areas. Floodplain mapping is an ongoing process, and maps are regularly updated for major rivers and tributaries as land uses and development patterns change.

Executive Order 11988 — Floodplain Management
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2574 5/5/2026

Page 3 of 17 ends

Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid, to the extent practicable and feasible, short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Further, EO 11988 requires the prevention of uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible use of floodplains, protection and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and consistency with the standards and criteria of the NFIP.

The basic tools for regulating construction in potentially hazardous floodplain areas are local zoning techniques and FEMA floodplain mapping. The Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is the official map created and distributed by FEMA and NFIP that delineates Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs)—areas that are subject to inundation by a base flood—for every county and community that participates in the NFIP. FIRMs contain flood risk information based on historic, meteorological, hydrologic, and hydraulic data, as well as open-space conditions, flood control works, and development.

For projects that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source, and, thus, result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or SFHA, a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision (CLOMR) would need to be prepared and approved by FEMA prior to any work occurring.

The project site has been determined to be within Zone X, which is outside of 100-year SFHA per the effective FIRM 06059C0163J (2008).

2.2 State Laws and Requirements
California Fish and Game Code
Under Sections 1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code, agencies are required to notify the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) prior to implementing any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface water that may impair beneficial uses of surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the state.

Waters of the state include more than just waters of the U.S., and consist of groundwater and surface water not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of “waste,” as defined; this definition is broader than the CWA definition of “pollutant.” Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA, and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details regarding water quality standards in a project area are contained in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions and set criteria necessary to protect these uses. Consequently, the water quality standards developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use, and vary depending on such use. In addition, the EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2575 5/5/2026

Page 4 of 17 ends

SWRCB identifies water failing to meet standards for specific pollutants, which are then state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If the state determines that the water is impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point-source or non-source-point controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non-point, and natural) for a given watershed.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB adjudicates water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water dischargers, including MS4s. USEPA defines an MS4 as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that are designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water.”
The SWRCB/RWQCB (Santa Ana Region) has identified the City of Santa Ana as an owner/operator of an MS4, pursuant to federal regulations. The city is required to obtain the coverage under Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff (Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, NPDES No.

CAS618030), which will expire on April 1, 2014. The permit requirements will remain active until a new permit has been adopted.

Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit (NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by 2010-0014-DWG), adopted on November 16, 2010, became effective on February 14, 2011. This permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that would result in a DSA of 1 acre or greater and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. For all projects subject to the Construction General Permit, applicants are required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Storm water discharges associated with clearing, grading, and excavation for construction and results in soil disturbance of at least 1 acre must comply with the provisions of the Construction General Permit. Construction activities that result in soil disturbances of less than 1 acre are subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity, as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop SWPPPs to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2576 5/5/2026

Page 5 of 17 ends

The Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Level 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are determined during the planning and design phases and are based on potential erosion and transport to receiving water. Requirements apply according to each respective risk level. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring and pre- and post-construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows.

The discharger (City of Santa Ana) must submit an NOI to the Santa Ana RWQCB and obtain Construction General Permit coverage prior to any soil disturbance. Coverage under this permit would not commence until the discharger develops an adequate SWPPP for the project.

The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a monitoring program.

The program must be implemented at the start of construction activity and must include inspections that:
x Identify areas contributing to storm water discharge
x Evaluate whether BMPs identified in the SWPPP are adequate and functioning properly x Evaluate whether additional control practices or corrective maintenance activities are needed Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most common federal permit triggering 401 Certification is a CWA Section 404 permit, issued by USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before USACE issues a 404 permit.

In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns about discharges associated with a project.

As a result, the RWQCB may issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) that define activities, such as inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals, that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges.

2.3 Regional and Local Requirements
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB carries out its water quality protection authority through the adoption of Basin Plans.

These plans establish water quality standards for particular bodies of water. California water quality standards are composed of three parts: the designation of beneficial uses of water, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and implementation programs designed to achieve and maintain compliance with water quality objectives. The RWQCB, Santa Ana Region, is responsible for the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Basin, where the proposed project lies. The RWQCB implements management plans to modify and adopt standards under provisions set forth in Section 303(c) of the CWA and the California Water Code (Division 7, Section 13240).

The SWRCB adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Water, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California in 2000. This policy provides implementation measures for criteria contained in the California Toxics Rule, promulgated in May 2000 by USEPA. When combined EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2577 5/5/2026

Page 6 of 17 ends

with the beneficial use designations in the Basin Plan, these documents establish statewide water quality standards for toxic constituents in surface water.

Basin Plan
The Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (RWQCB Region 8), most recently amended in June 2011, establishes water quality objectives for constituents that could potentially cause an adverse effect or impact on the beneficial uses of water. Specifically, Basin Plans are designed to accomplish the following:

1. Designate beneficial uses for surface and ground water

2. Set the narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to California’s anti-degradation policy

3. Describe implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all water in the region

4. Describe surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plans Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable SWRCB and RWQCB plans and policies. In addition to Basin Plan requirements, the RWQCB has water quality control authority under Section 401 of the CWA if the city needs to apply for a Nationwide Permit under Section 404 of the CWA.

Total Maximum Daily Load
TMDL refers to the amount of a specific pollutant a river, stream, or lake can assimilate and still meet federal water quality standards as provided in the CWA. TMDL accounts for all sources of pollution, including point sources, non-point sources, and natural background sources. Section 303(d) requires that regulatory agencies determine TMDLs for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies provides a prioritization and schedule for development of TMDLs for the state.

The SWRCB, in compliance with the Section 303(d) of the CWA (33 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1313[d]), prepared a 2010 list of impaired waterbodies in California, which has been approved by USEPA. The list includes a priority schedule for the development of TMDLs implementation for each contaminant impacting the water body.

Orange County NPDES Permit
The proposed project is subject to the RWQCB’s Orange County MS4 Permit, Order R8-2009-0030 (as amended by Order R8-2010-0062). The proposed project design will need to comply with the requirements and measures outlined in this municipal permit to minimize impacts to water quality and runoff hydrology for the construction and operational phases of the proposed project.

Drainage Area Management Program
The Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) was implemented and created by the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and its incorporated cities (permittees) in 1993 (revised in 2003). The DAMP is the principle policy and guidance document for the NPDES program.

It is the foundation for model programs, local implementation plans, and watershed implementation EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2578 5/5/2026

Page 7 of 17 ends

plans. Section 7 of the DAMP discusses issues relating to new developments and significant redevelopments. Section 11 describes the water quality monitoring requirements for the permittees.

Model Water Quality Management Plan
This document was developed to aid the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, the cities in Orange County (Permittees) and any project proponents within Orange County to address post-construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new development and significant redevelopment projects that qualify as Priority Projects. The purpose is to develop a project WQMP and describe the how practicable and enforceable project-based stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be implemented to minimize the effects of urbanization on site hydrology, runoff flow rates or velocities, and pollutant loads (i.e. Low Impact Development or LID).

Following approval of the final project WQMP and construction of the project, the document will serve to maintain the terms, conditions, and requirements with the project proponent and their successors and assigns. The requirements identified in the Project WQMP are subject to DAMP Section 7.

The project is categorized as street, road, highway or freeway of 5,000 square feet or more of paved surface and thus considered a Priority Project. The project will be required to comply with the North OC Priority Project LID requirements.

Orange County Construction Runoff Guidance Manual
The Construction Runoff Guidance Manual (Guidance Manual) presents the requirements related to construction from the DAMP. The goal of the Guidance Manual is to control pollutant discharges from construction sites. As such, it helps applicants for building and grading permits to understand the water quality requirements during the construction phase of development projects.

City of Santa Ana General Plan
The City of Santa Ana General Plan Conservation Element establishes the following policies and programs that relate to hydrology and water quality (City of Santa Ana 1982):
x Encourage water conservation through design and facilities features of new developments through the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed-scale retrofits, etc., where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible x Preserve vegetation along watercourse channels
x Establish development guidelines for areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss x Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site
x Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, and require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural controls and best management practices to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows
x Ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat
x Maintain compliance with regional watershed and storm water management principles City of Santa Ana Municipal Code
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2579 5/5/2026

Page 8 of 17 ends

The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (1969), Chapter 18, Article IV, Sections 151–161 regulate water pollution to improve water quality and comply with federal regulations relating to storm water runoff. Included in the code are the following:
x Prohibit illicit connections and discharges
x Comply with the Orange County DAMP and any other terms, conditions, and requirements defined by the City of Santa Ana
x Give the City of Santa Ana the right to inspect the project for compliance and the administrative remedies for noncompliance
x Provides a discussion of the permitting process

3. Water Quality Objectives and Beneficial Uses

3.1 Surface Water Objectives and Beneficial Uses
There is currently no numeric water quality standard for the waterbodies downstream of the project site. The beneficial uses have been summarized in the following table:

Present or Potential Beneficial Uses
Santa Ana Delhi Channel Currently not assessed. Upcoming Beneficial Uses identification per Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) by CDM (first draft in 2009).

Upper Newport Bay REC1, REC2, COMM, BIOL, WILD, RARE, SPWN, MAR, SHEL, EST Lower Newport Bay NAV, REC1, REC2, COMM, WILD, RARE, SPWN, MAR, SHEL Abbreviations:

NAV - Navigation WILD - wildlife habitat
REC1 - water contact recreation RARE - rare & endangered species REC2 - non-contact water recreation SPWN - fish spawning COMM - commercial and sport fishing MAR - marine habitat BIOL - preservation of biological habitats of
special significance
SHEL - shellfish harvesting
EST - estuarine habitat

3.2 Ground Water Objectives and Beneficial Uses
The proposed project site is underlain by the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The beneficial uses of the basin include municipal supply, agricultural supply, industrial service supply, and industrial process supply. All groundwater are subject to the narrative water quality objectives described to the Santa Ana Basin Plan (RWQCB 1995, updated 2008 & 2011) and the following quantitative objectives:
• 580 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids
• 3.4 mg/L Nitrate as Nitrogen

3.3 Existing Water Quality
Regional Water Quality
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2580 5/5/2026

Page 9 of 17 ends

No agreements or negotiation understandings with the Santa Ana RWQCB have been made at this time. Coordination with RWQCB will be made during the Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) phase to ensure compliance.

List of Impaired Waterbodies
The project site will drain directly to a storm drain system located at Santa Ana Blvd and Santiago Street. This storm drain system will eventually discharge to Santa Ana Delhi Channel, Upper Newport Bay and then Lower Newport Bay before discharging to Pacific Ocean. The TMDL requirements for the downstream waterbodies are shown below:
2010 TMDL REQUIREMENT

STATUS POLLUTANT
Santa Ana Delhi
Channel TMDL Required Indicator Bacteria
Upper Newport Bay
Being Addressed by USEPA
Approved TMDLs
Nutrients, Pathogens, Pesticides and
Sediment
TMDL Required
Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals,
PCBs(Polychlorinated Biphenyls) and
sediment
Lower Newport Bay
Being Addressed by USEPA
Approved TMDLs Nutrients, Pathogens and Pesticides
TMDL Required
Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals,
PCBs(Polychlorinated Biphenyls) and
sediment
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)
The nearest Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) is the Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge (ASBS 32), which is approximately 12 miles south of the project site. According to the corresponding Reconnaissance Survey Report (1979), the greatest potential water quality threat to this ASBS may be the outflow from Newport Bay, which, at times, is carried downcoast by prevailing water currents.

4. Potential Impacts to Water Quality

4.1 Anticipated Changes to the Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment Substrate
The tributary area around the project site is mostly paved and the surface run-off will be collected by the existing storm drain system. Therefore, the physical impact to the existing substrate beneath the project site is very insignificant.

Since there will be landscape median reconstruction, applications of pesticide and fertilizer are expected. However, compared with the existing condition where the landscape median is already in place, the impact to the substrate water quality condition will not be worsened.

Current, Circulation, or Drainage Patterns
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2581 5/5/2026

Page 10 of 17 ends

The impact to any surface waterbody flow current and the hydrologic circulation caused by the proposed improvements is very insignificant because the project is situated in an urban area, which is not within the vicinity of any surface waterbody.

The project will utilize a pump station to handle the street run-off at the low point and the pump station outflow will tie back to the existing storm drain system nearby. Therefore, the impact to the regional drainage pattern is also considered insignificant.

Suspended Particulates (Turbidity)
According to the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for OC WQMP, suspended particulates, trash, and debris are often discovered in streets and highways. Since there will be approximately 0.35 acre of net new impervious area being created, the amount of suspended solids and sediments generated by the street could become a concern. Water quality treatment BMPs should be provided to accommodate these pollutants of concern.

Oil, Grease, and Chemical Pollutants
With an increase in road surface, the proposed project has the potential to increase pollutants from urban runoff, including heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, oil, and grease.

Water quality treatment BMPs should be provided to accommodate these pollutants of concern.

Temperature, Oxygen Depletion, and Other Parameters
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact the area temperature or oxygen depletion. An increase in litter is also not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the receiving waterbodies downstream of the project site are not listed as impaired by trash and/or low dissolved oxygen.

Flood Control Functions
The impact to the existing floodplain is negligible because the project site is not within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The project is located within Zone “X” (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain). The increase in impervious surface for the project would be minimal, and all runoff would be properly conveyed through pipes and gutter.

Storm, Wave, and Erosion Buffers
The proposed project is 10.5 miles away from the coast and would have no impact on storm, wave, or erosion buffers.

Erosion and Accretion Patterns
The small increase in impervious area will slightly increase the local surface run-off amount and potentially cause downstream erosion concern. However, the majority of the project run-off will drain to the proposed pump station, where the attenuation effect will help minimize the erosion effect downstream. Change in accretion pattern is not anticipated.

Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2582 5/5/2026

Page 11 of 17 ends

Although the proposed project has the potential to increase pollutant loading and indirectly impact the groundwater, biofiltration systems, which are considered an effective way to treat dissolved solids and nitrate, would be employed to reduce the pollutants of concerns to groundwater.

Baseflow
There is no known baseflow condition within the project site.

4.2 Anticipated Changes to the Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment Special Aquatic Sites
Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge (ASBS 32) is located approximately 12 miles south of the project site. The runoff generated by the project site may indirectly impact the ASBS. However, the large geographical distance and the tidal mixing would reduce such impact.

Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms
Beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay include fish spawning (SPWN), marine habitat (MAR), preservation of biological habitats of special significance (BIOL), shellfish harvesting (SHEL) and estuarine habitat (EST). The proposed project has the potential to impact the water quality and thus affect the fish habitat downstream; however, no impacts are anticipated with the implementation of water quality BMPs, as outlined in Section 5.

Wildlife Habitat
Beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay include wildlife habitat. The proposed project has the potential to impact water quality and thus cause concern to wildlife habitat; however, water quality BMPs will be implemented to minimize the influence to water quality. Therefore, impact to wildlife habitat is not anticipated.

Wildlife Passage (Beneficial Uses)
The proposed project would have no impact on wildlife passage because the project location is situated in a fully developed urban area.

Endangered or Threatened Species
Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) (Beneficial Uses): There are no endangered or threatened species on or adjacent to the biological study area for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to endangered or threatened species.

Invasive Species
During construction of the proposed project there is potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive species. The following mitigation measure would be implemented into the project in order to minimize the introduction and/or spread of invasive species to the project site:

Mitigation Measures, Standard Best Management Practices, and Applicable Best Management Practices shall be implemented. These include but are not limited to:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2583 5/5/2026

Page 12 of 17 ends

x Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. x Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located at sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to the City and/or RWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. x Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth.
x Trucks with loads carrying vegetation will be covered and vegetation materials removed from the site will be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. x Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction. x To avoid attracting wildlife to the project site, the construction shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).

Bio-Swales
Bio-swales will have positive impacts on the following Beneficial Uses for Reach 1 of the Santa Ana River, Santa Ana River Salt Marsh, and the Nearshore Zone- San Gabriel River to Poppy Street in Corona Del Mar (all located in HU 801.11):
x IND- Direct benefit from retention of available water within the local system; x REC-1- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x COMM- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x WARM- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x WILD- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x BIOL- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x SPAWN- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x MAR- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x SHEL- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources x EST- Auxiliary benefit from removal of pollutants prior to reaching downstream resources

4.3 Anticipated Changes to the Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment Existing and Potential Water Supplies; Water Conservation The Upper and Lower Newport Bay beneficial uses do not include water supply for agricultural and municipal uses. Therefore, the impact to these beneficial uses caused by the project is not anticipated.

Recreational or Commercial Fisheries
The project has the potential to impact the beneficial uses of commercial and sport fishing (COMM) in Upper and Lower Newport Bay due to the slight increase in pollutant loading from the new impervious area. Biofiltration systems will be implemented to reduce the impacts.

Other Water Related Recreation
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2584 5/5/2026

Page 13 of 17 ends

The Upper and Lower Newport Bay beneficial uses include water contact recreation (REC1), noncontact water recreation (REC2). However, the impact to these beneficial uses caused by the proposed improvements is not anticipated.

Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
The project has the potential to impact the aesthetics of the aquatic ecosystem due to increased pollutant loading. Biofiltration systems will be implemented to reduce the impacts.

Parks, National & Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wild & Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas Runoff from the proposed project could indirectly impact the Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge (ASBS 32) located approximately 12 miles south of the project site. However, biofiltration systems would be implemented to reduce potential impacts.

Traffic/Transportation Patterns
The purpose of this project is to ease traffic congestion within the project vicinity. As a result, there would be a positive impact to traffic/transportation patterns.

Energy Consumption of Generation
There are no beneficial uses for power generation located within the project area.

Navigation
Impact to navigation in Upper and Lower Newport Bay caused by the proposed improvements is not anticipated.

Safety
Safety would not be impacted by the project.

4.4 Short Term Impacts During Construction
Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment Without implementation of construction BMPs, construction of the proposed project has the potential to impact surface water quality. Grading for construction activity would remove vegetation and expose soil to erosion from wind and water. Erosion can result in sedimentation that would ultimately flow into surface waters. Other contaminants include hydrocarbons, metals, bacteria, and trash. However, with the implementation of minimization measure WQ-1, these potential impacts will be minimized.

Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment
The Upper and Lower Newport Bay have designated beneficial uses related to the biological characteristics of fish spawning (SPWN), marine habitat (MAR), preservation of biological habitats of special significance (BIOL), shellfish harvesting (SHEL) and estuarine habitat (EST), rare and endangered species (RARE) and wildlife habitat (WILD). Without the implementation of construction BMPs, the works will have the potential to impact surface water quality and, hence, biological EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2585 5/5/2026

Page 14 of 17 ends

characteristics of the aquatic environment. Grading for construction activity would remove vegetation and expose soil to erosion from wind and water. Erosion can result in sedimentation that would ultimately flow into surface waters. Other contaminants include hydrocarbons, metals, bacteria, and trash. However, with implementation of minimization measure WQ-1, these potential impacts will be minimized.

Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment
Beneficial uses from human activities include water contact recreation (REC1), non-contact water recreation (REC2), commercial and sport fishing (COMM) and Navigation (NAV) in Lower and Upper Newport Bay. However, the short-term impact to human use characteristics of the aquatic environment is considered minimal due to the large distance from the surface waterbodies mentioned. Therefore, with the implementation of construction BMPs, the impact to these beneficial uses can be minimized.

4.5 Long Term Impacts During Operation and Maintenance
Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment Without the implementation of BMPs, operation of the proposed project has the potential to impact surface water quality and thus affect the physical/chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment.

The impervious area increase will cause additional pollutants to urban runoff, including oil and grease, metals, organic compounds, nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria. The BMPs, as outlined in Section 5, will be provided to minimize the long term impact to water quality.

Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment
The project O&M activities can potentially impact surface water quality and, hence, biological characteristics of the aquatic environment and the corresponding beneficial uses. The proposed project has the potential to increase pollutants in urban runoff, including oil and grease, metals, organic compounds, nutrients, pesticides, and bacteria. The BMPs, as outlined in Section 5, would be provided to minimize the water quality impact.

Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment
Beneficial uses from human activities include water contact recreation (REC1), non-contact water recreation (REC2), commercial and sport fishing (COMM) and Navigation (NAV) in Lower and Upper Newport Bay. The amount of pollutant increase is directly proportional to the new impervious area created. Therefore, there could be long-term impacts to the water quality and thus further impacts to human use characteristics of the aquatic environment. However, the implementation of water quality BMPs, as outlined in Section 5, can minimize the impact to these beneficial uses.

4.6 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative study area for water quality and storm water runoff is the Lower Santa Ana River Hydrologic Area, East Coastal Plain Hydrologic Subarea (HSA 801.11). In the Orange County Watershed, the project site falls within the Newport Bay Watershed.

Any drainage off of the project site would eventually drain into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay and then the Pacific Ocean. The drainage areas adjacent to the EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2586 5/5/2026

Page 15 of 17 ends

project site are fully developed. Major land uses in the watershed include single-family residential, medium to high density residential, and commercial.

The trend of urbanization in the watershed is expected to grow. The continuous conversion of unpaved area to transportation, commercial and residential uses results in surface run-off increase due to the increased impervious area. It will further increase the loading of pollutants into the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, and potentially the groundwater.

To counteract the impacts associated with increased development, each project proposed in this watershed must undergo review by the applicable lead agency for compliance with NPDES permits for construction activities, groundwater dewatering, and project operations, as well as compliance with local urban runoff ordinances. Hydromodification and water quality BMPs must be employed in site designs to reduce sources of pollutants and to treat stormwater runoff, where applicable.

The purpose of the NPDES permit and the TMDL program is to restore the beneficial uses of receiving waterbodies. NPDES permits are updated every 5 years by the Santa Ana RWQCB based on the conditions of the watershed. Compliance with the NPDES program is considered sufficient to mitigate the impacts to water quality. Since the proposed improvements will include treatment measures that currently do not exist, and will employ minimization measures WQ-1 through WQ-3 as outlined in Section 5, the project will not worsen the existing water quality condition and thus will not cause cumulative water quality impacts.

5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Construction site, design pollution prevention, and treatment control BMPs would be incorporated into the final design of the proposed project. Compliance with the standard requirements of the SWMP for potential short-term (during construction) and long-term (post-construction/maintenance) impacts (listed below in minimization measures WQ-1, WQ-2, and WQ-3) would be required.

WQ-1: The project shall comply with the provisions of the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) and any subsequent permit in effect at the time of construction.

Prior to construction, Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), which includes permit application fee, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and other compliance related documents required by the permit, shall be mailed to the State Water Quality Control Board.

The project SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) or a Qualified SWPPP Developers (QSD) to address all construction related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact the water quality. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include construction site BMPs to control pollutants and sediments. The SWPPP shall include erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, and all other applicable non-stormwater management and material management BMPs. All construction site BMPs shall follow the latest edition of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction. In addition, the project water quality risk level shall be identified.

Rain Event Action Plan, Field Monitoring, and Reporting Guidance shall be prepared for effluent monitoring and receiving water monitoring.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2587 5/5/2026

Page 16 of 17 ends

The General Permit requires that permittees prepare, certify, and electronically submit an Annual Report no later than September 1st of each year. Reporting requirements are identified in Section XVI of the General Permit.

WQ-2: Treatment BMPs shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), consistent with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit, Order R8-2009-0030 (amended by Order R8-2010-0062, NPDES No. CAS 618030). Biofiltration systems or catch basin filter inserts are proposed as the potential treatment BMPs for the project. Detailed design of the BMP and the location will be determined in the final engineering phase. Removal of existing vegetation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible and any mature trees to be saved would be identified on final plans. The final siting and design of treatment BMPs will be designed in compliance with the OC Model WQMP (2010), the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) and the 2003 OC Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).

WQ-3: Design pollution prevention BMPs shall be implemented in accordance with Green Streets Municipal Handbook (EPA-833-F-08-009; 2008), such as preservation of existing vegetation, slope/surface protection systems (permanent soil stabilization), concentrated flow conveyance systems such as ditches, berms, dikes, and swales, overside drains, flared end sections, and outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2588 5/5/2026

Page 17 of 17 ends

6. References
Caltrans Division of Design Stormwater homepage for guidance and tools (Project Risk Level, Estimating for CGP, Erosion Prediction software, etc.):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/index.htm
Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis Storm Water Homepage:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/
Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Volume I x For wetlands, hydromorphic method and water assessment information, see Chapter 15 - Waters of the U.S. and the State:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/natural/ch15wetland/ch15wetland.htm x For hydraulic studies and floodplain encroachment information, see Chapter 17 - Floodplains:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch17flood/chap17.htm x For Coastal Zone permits information, see Chapter 18 - Coastal Zone:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch18coastal/chap18.htm x For Wild and Scenic Rivers information, see Chapter 19 - Wild and Scenic Rivers:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch19wsrivers/chap19.htm Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/swdr2010/PPDG%20July%202010%20r2.pdf Caltrans Stormwater Quality Practice Guidelines:
http://pd.dot.ca.gov/env/stormwater/html/practice_guidelines.htm Caltrans Water Quality Planning Tool: http://www.water-programs.com/wqpt.htm Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) website and Basin Plans:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml State Water Resources Control Board Storm Water Program, 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml State Water Resources Control Board, Ocean Standards, Areas of Special biological Significance http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_areas.shtml United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Section 404(b)(1) guidelines:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/40cfrPart230.pdf
FEMA Map Service Center:
https://msc.fema.gov/
UC Davis Geo Waterbody System Beneficial Uses:
http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/geowbs/asp/wbquse.asp
Orange County Watersheds Program
http://www.ocwatersheds.com/
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2589 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N11

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2590 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2591 5/5/2026
2 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

1. Summary
The City of Santa Ana, in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Department), is proposing to grade separate the existing Santa Ana Boulevard/Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Metrolink at-grade railroad crossing in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California (see Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety, as it will remove the existing at-grade conflict between pedestrian, vehicular traffic, and rail traffic. In addition, the proposed project would reduce the congestion and inconvenience caused by this existing at-grade facility. As part of the grade separation the proposed project includes: minor improvements to the Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street intersection; terminating Logan Street north of Santa Ana Boulevard by constructing a cul-desac; and improvements to Fuller Street, both north and south of Santa Ana Boulevard (see Figure 3).

A general reconnaissance-level biological survey was performed to evaluate the potential for special status species and natural vegetation communities to occur within the Biological Study Area (BSA), which inluded the proposed Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and a 100-foot buffer.

No natural vegetation communities occur within the BSA. In addition, no impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands would occur, as these resources are not present within the BSA.

Mitigation measures (MM-1 through MM-3) will be required to ensure that take of bat species and native birds (including raptors) and their nests, does not occur during construction.

Mitigation measure MM-4 would minimize the introduction and/or spread of invasive species.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2592 5/5/2026
5 405
5 5
405
55 91
261
73 57
72 22
133
90 133
90 261
72 91
261
57 22
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Irvine
Orange
Costa Mesa
Garden Grove
Fullerton
Tustin
Fountain Valley
Newport Beach
Westminster
Tustin Foothills
Placentia
Villa Park Villa Park
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Imperial San Diego
Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd SM (06-13-11) Project Site
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2593 5/5/2026
Project Location
French Park French Park
Logan
Park
BNSF RR and Amtrak P E Railroad
15th
Walnut
Mcclay
Wright
Standard
Spurgeon
Washington
French
Elk
Linwood
Poinsettia
Lyon
Orange
Oakmont
Cypress
Halladay
Oak
Santiago
Main
Parrie
Hardly
14th
Grace
Maple
4th
Breeden
Trinidad
Lincoln
Kilson
Obarr
8th
Mabury
Brown
Dresser
Myrtle
Mortimer
Martha
Greenwood
5th
Penn
Eastside
Porter
11th
Stafford
12th
Terminal
Eastwood
Patricia
2nd
Camile
Court
Hathaway
Dorman
9th
10th
Valencia
Palm
Vance
Minnie
18th
Warren
Cedar
Concord
Custer
Wellington
Fuller
Fruit
6th
Fairmont
19th
Bush
20th
21st
Catalina
Logan
16th
3rd
Santa Fe
Minter
Garfield Hickory
Civic Center
Bishop
Pine
Lacy
Chestnut
Santa Ana
17th
Grand
Mortimer
Main
4th
1st
5th
5 Figure 2
Project Location Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig02_Project_Location.mxd SM (06-13-11)) Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2594 5/5/2026
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Bio\Fig03_Proposed_Project_Area.ai SS (11-02-11) Figure 3
Proposed Project Area
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2595 5/5/2026
6 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

2. Introduction
The City of Santa Ana, in coordination with the Department, is proposing the Santa Ana BoulevardGrade Separation Project (project). This Natural Environment Study Minimal Impacts (NES-MI) describes the existing biological environment and contains the technical analysis to support environmental documentation concerning plants, animals, and natural vegetation communities that may be affected by the proposed project.

The project is located in the City of Santa Ana, California (see Figures 1 and 2), and is found in an un-sectioned portion of Township 5 South, Range 9 West, of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Orange and Tustin quadrangles (Orange 1981; Tustin 1981).

The proposed project improvements extend along Santa Ana Boulevard from approximately Santiago Street at the west end to the west side of the Interstate 5 (I-5) southbound off-ramp intersection with Santa Ana Boulevard. As part of the grade separation the proposed project includes: minor improvements to the Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street intersection; terminating Logan Street north of Santa Ana Boulevard by constructing a cul-de-sac; and improvements to Fuller Street, both north and south of Santa Ana Boulevard (see Figure 3).

The project proposes to relocate Santa Ana Boulevard approximately 30 feet south of its existing alignment, to construct a utility corridor on the north side of the roadway, and to maintain the existing lane configuration of three lanes in each direction for the entire length of the project.

The project would include the construction of an underpass bridge (i.e., roadway going under the railroad tracks) and retaining walls, installation of paving, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, streetlights, landscape and irrigation features, drainage facilities, and the relocation of utilities.

During construction the project proposes to construct a temporary two track shoofly railroad alignment for the purpose of constructing the underpass structure while maintaining railroad service, which is to be constructed beginning just south of the existing Metrolink crossing of I5 and terminating south of the Santa Ana Transportation Center near E 4th Street. This shoofly alignment would be located east of the existing railroad alignment. The project also proposes to construct a two-lane detour road south of Santa Ana Boulevard, which would be used by traffic during the construction of the underpass bridge and its approaches. The project also proposes to use Fruit Street as a detour route during the final phase of construction. New rightEXHIBIT 2 City Council 22 – 2596 5/5/2026
7 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
of-way, including both permanent acquisition and temporary easements, would be needed for the construction of the shoofly and detour road.

Construction staging areas for the proposed project would potentially be located on the following properties: APNs 398-093-13, 398-092-02, and 398-207-01.

The proposed Project LOD consists of portions of Santa Ana Boulevard, Santiago Street, Lincoln Avenue, E. Washington Avenue, Logan Street, Fuller Street, Fruit Street, Sixth Street, E 4th Street, and Metrolink right-of-way (see Figure 3).

3. Study Methods
Regionally occurring plant and animal species and natural vegetation communities with special regulatory or management status were evaluated for the potential to occur within the BSA.

This evaluation included a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2009) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2009) Electronic Inventory. Prior to conducting fieldwork, a search of the CNDDB and CNPS was performed for lands depicted on the USGS 7.5-minute Orange and Tustin quadrangle maps (Orange and Tustin 1981). In addition, the surrounding quadrangles were reviewed for context of the region (Anaheim, Blackstar Canyon, El Toro, La Habra, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Prado Dam, San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Linda). A list of special status species and natural vegetation communities was developed from these database searches. Appendix A provides the list of the special status species (including scientific names) and natural vegetation communities that were reviewed for the project.

A reconnaissance level survey of the BSA was performed on September 15, 2011 by Zackry West, an ICF International regulatory specialist/biologist. Weather conditions during the site visit consisted of air temperatures between 77° and 79° Fahrenheit (F) with approximately 20 to 40percent cloud cover and otherwise sunny skies. As mentioned previously, the BSA included the LOD plus a 100-foot buffer. The entire BSA was physically inspected for potentially sensitive biological resources including potential jurisdictional water features and special-status plants and animals. Representative photographs of the BSA are provided in Appendix B.

Judgments regarding the conditions, habitats, and resources on the BSA are based on a complex and carefully evaluated array of information. This includes (1) published and unpublished information on local and regional ecosystems and resources; (2) prior and current field identification and evaluation of resources; (3) extensive personal and professional experience and training; and (4) careful observations made during the site visit.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2597 5/5/2026
8 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

4. Environmental Setting
This section provides a description of the current conditions of the BSA including the biological resources that were observed during the site visit.

4.1. Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions The project occurs within the City of Santa Ana. The majority of the BSA consists of the OCTA Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center, facilities operated by the Orange County Department of Public Works, light industrial facilities, various existing road alignments, and Metrolink railroad lines. The Metrolink right-of-way consists of railroad tracks, ballast, and disturbed areas of bare ground. Elevations on site range from approximately 120 to 150 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

No potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources were observed within the BSA during the September 15, 2011 field visit.

Soils on the project site consist of Mocho Loam. Soils along the Metrolink right-of-way appeared to be heavily compacted. No sandy or clay soils are mapped as present.

4.2 Regional Species and Habitats of Concern
Based on geographic distribution, 100 special-status plant and animal species and 13 sensitive natural vegetation communities have been reported to occur in the region of the BSA. A list of these species and vegetation communities, as well as their requirements and potential for occurrence within the BSA, is provided in Appendix A. Additional biological resources of concern within the region include potential migratory bird (including raptor species) nesting resources, and potential bat roosting resources.

4.3 Vegetation
The entirety of the BSA consists of developed areas, including ornamental landscaping.

Vegetation within the ornamental landscaping portion of the BSA consists mostly of nonnative trees, shrubs, ground cover, and turf-grass. Commonly observed plants included coral tree (Erythrina sp.), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimiosifolia), carrot wood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffianum), lemonscented gum (Eucalyptus citriodera), Indian hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica), star jasmine EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2598 5/5/2026
9 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
(Trachelospermum jasminoides), Heavenly bamboo (Nandina domestica), daylily (Hemerocallis sp.), New Zealand flax (Phormium sp.), and bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.).

A total of 101 plant species were observed during the September 15, 2011 site visit. A comprehensive list of all the plant species observed within the BSA is provided in Appendix C1.

Areas within the Metrolink right-of-way are largely unvegetated, consisting mostly of active rails and ballast material; however, scattered ruderal species occur along the periphery of the existing right-of-way, on heavily compacted soils. These species include prickly Russianthistle (Salsola tragus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), spotted spurge (Chamaesyce maculata), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and Common Horseweed (Conyza canadensis). This area appears to be subject to a large amount of regular human disturbance associated with routine operation and maintenance of the Metrolink right-of-way.

Although conducted outside of the spring blooming season, no special status plants were observed during the September 15, 2011 site visit, and based upon mapped soils, elevation of the BSA, the lack of native vegetation communities, and the urbanized and disturbed nature of the entire BSA, special status plants are not expected to occur. No native vegetation communities occur within the BSA.

4.4 Animals
The majority of wildlife species observed within the BSA consisted of birds and insects.

Common species were Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), rock dove (Columba livia), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), fiery skipper (Hylephila phyleus), Gulf fritillary (Argaulis vanillae), European honey bee (Apis mellifera), and green fruit beetle (Cotinis sp.). One raptor species, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), was observed flying over the BSA. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were observed at several residences. A list of the wildlife species detected within the BSA is found in Appendix C2.

No special status animals were detected during the September 15, 2011 site visit.

Much of the ornamental landscaping within the BSA could potentially support migratory bird nesting activities. Similarly, several large ornamental trees (including palm trees) within the BSA may be suitable for raptor nesting and/or bat roosting activities. Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and similar provisions of the California Fish and Game Code.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2599 5/5/2026
10 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Several buildings within the LOD have been proposed for demolition to accommodate project construction. If any of these buildings are allowed to remain unused prior to demolition, these buildings may be also become suitable for bat roosting. Several bat species with potential to occur within the BSA are California Species of Special Concern (Appendix A), and are protected under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code.

There are no wildlife linkages or corridors within the BSA. The Metrolink right-of-way would not serve as a suitable corridor for wildlife as vegetation is extremely sparse and trains frequently travel through the area. Additionally, there are portions of the Metrolink right-ofway that are very narrow and any animals that may use the right-of-way as a corridor are at high risk of mortality.
5 Project Impacts
With the exception of roosting bats and nesting bird species, no special-status species or sensitive natural vegetation communities listed in Appendix A are expected to occur within the BSA. This analysis was based a combination of the following: presence/absence of suitable habitat, soils, geographic range, elevation range and disturbances within the BSA. With the implementation of the proposed measures outlined in Section 6, impacts to these resources are not expected to occur as a result of the construction of the proposed project. Similarly, since there are no sensitive natural vegetation communities supported on or adjacent to the BSA, impacts to sensitive natural vegetation communities would not occur as a result of construction of the project .

Project activities may result in impacts to native nesting birds, including raptors. If construction of the project occurs during the bird breeding season (February 15 through September 1), any noise or tree removal caused by construction activities may result in the abandonment of an active nest and/or loss of young. Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA and similar provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of MM1 would ensure that impacts to nesting birds would not occur.

There are several large ornamental trees within the BSA that may be suitable for raptor nesting.

If construction of the proposed project occurs during the raptor breeding season (February 15 through September 1), any noise or tree removal caused by construction activities may result in the abandonment of an active nest and/or loss of young. Nesting raptors are protected under MBTA and similar provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of MM2 would ensure that impacts to nesting raptors would not occur.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2600 5/5/2026
11 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Similarly, there are several large ornamental trees and several buildings within the LOD.

Several of the ornamental trees may be suitable for bat roosting. Additionally, if any of the buildings are allowed to remain unused prior to construction, these building may also be suitable for bat roosting. Several bat species with potential to occur within the BSA are California Species of Special Concern, and are protected under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of MM-3 would ensure that impacts to bat species would not occur.

During construction of the proposed project there is potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive species. Measure MM-4 would minimize the introduction and/or spread of invasive species to the project site.
6 Mitigation Measures
The measures presented below for the proposed project will ensure that no impacts occur to natural resources regardless of regulatory status. The following measures are avoidance and/or minimization measures to reduce impacts to species.

MM-1. Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. If project-related site disturbances are scheduled to occur during the core nesting period (February 15 through September 1), a qualified biologist will perform preconstruction nesting bird surveys. The survey will be completed within seven days prior to any project-related disturbances. If native birds are nesting on or within 100 feet (as accessible) of the LOD, a 100-foot buffer (or an alternative width, as determined by a qualified ornithologist) should be flagged around the nest, and no project-related construction activities within the buffer will occur until it has been determined that all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.

MM-2. Preconstruction Nesting Raptor Survey. If project-related site disturbances are scheduled to occur during the core nesting period (February 15 through September 1), a qualified biologist will perform preconstruction nesting raptor surveys. The survey will be completed within seven days prior to any project-related disturbances. If raptors are nesting on or within 500 feet (as accessible) of the LOD, a 500-foot buffer (or an alternative width, as determined by a qualified ornithologist) should be flagged around the nest, and no projectrelated construction activities within the buffer will occur until it has been determined that all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.

MM-3. Preconstruction Bat Survey. To prevent impacts on daytime bat roosts and maternity roosts, a qualified biologist will be retained to conduct bat and bat roosting site surveys prior to commencement of building demolition or mature tree removal activities. This pre-construction EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2601 5/5/2026
12 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
survey will be conducted at any abandoned buildings, as well as any mature tree proposed for removal and within 100 feet of the LOD. If no roosting sites or bats are found, a report confirming their absence will be sent to the CDFG and no further mitigation will be required.

If the pre-construction survey finds bats to be roosting, and building demolition/mature tree removal is scheduled to occur between October 1 and March 30 (outside of the maternity season of April 1st through September 30), the bats shall be evicted by the following methods.

Eviction of bats shall be conducted using bat exclusion techniques, developed by Bat Conservation International (BCI) and in consultation with CDFG. These techniques allow the bats to exit the roosting site but prevent re-entry to the site. This process will include, but not be limited to, the installation of one-way exclusion devices on buildings and a two-step cutting process for trees. Sealing buildings at the time of abandonment may prevent the need for the exclusion process. Where exclusionary devices would be installed on buildings, the devices shall remain in place for seven days, and then the exclusion points and any other potential entrances shall be sealed. A visual inspection of each building would be required prior to demolition to verify that all bats have been successfully excluded. Where the two-step cutting process would be applicable for tree roosts, surrounding branches, not housing bats, would be removed during step one. This would alter the condition of the roost tree, causing bats to abandon the roost. The tree can then be fully removed, as step two. A visual inspection of the roost tree would be required prior to removal to verify that all bats have been successfully excluded. This work shall be completed by a bat exclusion professional.

If the pre-construction survey finds bats to be roosting and building demolition/mature tree removal is scheduled to occur during the maternity season (April 1 through September 30), a qualified biologist will monitor the roost to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This may be determined by either visual inspection of the roost for bat pups, if possible, or monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats shall be evicted as described above. If the roost is determined to be a maternal roost, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season, as bat pups cannot leave the roost until they have reached maturity. In this case, a 250-foot-wide buffer zone (or an alternative width, as determined in consultation with CDFG) shall be established around the roosting site, within which no construction-related impacts shall occur until the bat pups are mature enough to permanently leave the roost.

MM-4. Standard Best Management Practices. Applicable Best Management Practices shall be implemented. These include but are not limited to:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2602 5/5/2026
13 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
 Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.  Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located at sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to the City and/or RWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
 Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth.
 Trucks with loads carrying vegetation will be covered, and vegetation materials removed from the site will be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
 Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction.
 To avoid attracting wildlife to the project site, the construction shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
7 Permits Required

7.1 California Environmental Quality Act.

With the implementation of the measures provided in Section 6, any potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level that would be less than significant; therefore, the proposed project would not result in any CEQA significant impacts.

7.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game Code There are many species of migratory birds that have potential to occur within the BSA. The species detected in the study area lack special status, but some of which are protected under EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2603 5/5/2026
14 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
MBTA. Measure MM-1 and MM-2 would ensure compliance with MBTA; therefore, no further action is needed.

7.3 California Fish & Game Code [3503, 3503.5, 3505, 3800, 3801.6] There are many species of migratory birds that have potential to occur within the BSA. The species detected within the BSA lack special status, but some of which are protected under California Fish and Game Code. Measure MM-1 and MM-2 would ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code; therefore,no further action is needed.

7.4 Executive Order 13112
On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112, requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States.

Measure MM-4 ensures compliance with Executive Order 13112; therefore, no further action is necessary.
8 References
Anaheim. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Blackstar Canyon. 1988. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA:

U.S. Geological Survey. Color, revised 1988, scale 1:24,000. [Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory.

Berkeley, CA: California Invasive Plant Council. February 2006. [CBOC] California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9:171-177. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA: Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Dept. of Fish and Game. Data Date: September 3, 2011. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09b. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Available:
<http://www.cnps.org/inventory>. Accessed September 12, 2011.

El Toro. 1982. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1982, scale 1:24,000.

Hickman, J.C., editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2604 5/5/2026
15 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
University of California Press. 1400 pp.

La Habra. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Laguna Beach. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Newport Beach. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Norris Brenzel, Kathleen, editor. 2007. Western Garden Book, Completely Revised & Updated. Sunset Publishing Corporation. January 2007.

Prado Dam. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Orange. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

San Juan Capistrano. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA:

U.S. Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Tustin. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

Yorba Linda. 1981. Riverside, California 7.5-minute topographic map. Reston, VA: U.S.

Geological Survey. Color, revised 1981, scale 1:24,000.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2605 5/5/2026
16 Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
9 Appendices
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2606 5/5/2026
Appendix A Regional Special Status Species
and Natural Vegetation
Communities
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2607 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var.
aurita)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in sandy substrate within chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert dune habitats between 262 and 5,249 feet (ft). The blooming period is January to September.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
-/-/- Most frequently used habitats include dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous or other forest habitats near water. Seldom found in areas without dense tree stands or patchy woodland habitat. Breeds in southern Sierra Nevada foothills, New York Mountains, Owens Valley, and other local areas in southern California. Ranges from sea level to about 9,000 ft. This species is also known to use large ornamental trees in urban areas for nesting, roosting, and foraging activities.

HP Several large ornamental trees
occur within the project site. Nesting raptor preconstruction surveys are recommended if project impacts are scheduled to occur between February 15 and September 1.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
-/SC/- Nesting for this species typically occurs within wet areas vegetated with cattails or rush species. Agricultural fields and annual grasslands act as preferred foraging habitat.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) -/-/- Found in open oak woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats between 0 and 9,800 ft, though its general range is between 3,000 and 6,000 ft. Forages on the ground by walking and hopping under shrubs or dense grasses, rather than open area.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)
-/SC/- Prefers short to middle-height, moderately open grasslands with scattered shrubs between 0 and 4,900 ft. Forages primarily on the ground or from low vegetation, occasionally on bare ground.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2608 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus)
E/SC/- Inhabits washes, arroyos, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas with willows, sycamores, oaks, cottonwoods. Extremely specialized habitat needs, including exposed sandy streamsides with stable terraces for burrowing with scattered vegetation for shelter, and areas of quiet water or pools free of predatory fishes with sandy or gravel bottoms without silt for breeding. Occurs between 0 and 3,000 ft.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus)
-/-/SC Occurs in desert, oak forest, pine forest, and open farmland habitat. Roosting occurs in caves, rock crevices, mines, hollow trees, and buildings. Forages by flying low to the ground and swooping to catch large flying and grounddwelling insects.

HP Several large ornamental trees
and light industrial buildings are present within the project area. Pre-construction surveys are recommended.

Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides)
-/-/1B.2 This annual herb is found in sandy substrate within coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, and coastal scrub habitats between 3 and 1,001 ft. The blooming period is March to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
-/CFP/- Occurs in open and semi-open habitats from 0 to 11,808 ft. above sea level. Primarily found in mountainous areas, but also nest in wetland, riparian or estuarine habitat. Diet consists of small mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
-/-/- This species lives near sources of water, including rivers, lake edges, marshes, saltwater coasts, and swamps. Nesting occurs in trees or bushes that stand near water, breeding at elevations from 0 to 4,920 ft.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Long-eared Owl (Asio otus)
-/SC/- Inhabits dense vegetation close to grasslands, as well as open forest shrub lands from 0 to 6,560 ft. in elevation. Often found in tree belts along streams of plains, thickets surrounded by wetlands, grasslands, marshes, and HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2609 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
farmlands. further action is necessary.

Orangethroat Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)
-/SC/- Occurs primarily on coarse soils in open coastal sage scrub vegetation, as well as many other vegetation types and disturbed areas including: open chaparral; along edges of open, dry, riparian areas; along trails; along dirt roads, and; in areas of light off-road vehicle use. This species is often found in dry areas with 50% cover and 50% bare soil with flat to sloping topography, seldom using rodent burrows.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coastal Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri)
-/SC/- Found in a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse foliage-chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas are most common.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Braunton’s Milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii)
E/-/1B.1 This perennial herb is found in sandstone with carbonate layers within recently burned or disturbed areas,
specifically within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 13 and 3,000 ft. The blooming period is January to August.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
-/SC/- Inhabits open, dry, nearly or quite level, grassland; prairie; desert floor, and shrublands. Commonly found in microhabitats highly altered by man, including flood control and irrigation basins, dikes, and banks, abandoned fields surrounded by agriculture, and road cuts and margins. Strong association between burrowing owls and burrowing mammals, especially ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.); however, will also occupy human‐made niches such as banks and ditches, piles of broken concrete, and even abandoned structures.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary. No suitable burrows were observed within the project area. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coulter’s Saltbush -/-/1B.2 This perennial herb is found in alkaline or clay soils within coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and valley HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2610 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
(Atriplex coulteri) and foothill grassland habitats between 10 and 1,509 ft. The blooming period is March to October.
focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica)
-/-/1B.2 This annual herb is found in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and playa habitats between 0 and 459 ft. The blooming period is March to October.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Parish’s Brittlescale (Atriplex parishii)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in alkaline soils within chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pool habitats between 82 and 6,234 ft. The blooming period is June to October.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Davidson’s Saltscale (Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii)
-/-/1B.2 This annual herb is found in alkali soils within coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats between 32 and 656 ft. The blooming period is April to October.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Malibu Baccharis (Baccharis malibuensis)
-/-/1B.1 This deciduous shrub is found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats between 492 to 1,001 ft. The blooming period is August.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis)
E/-/- Occurs in vernal pools between Santa Barbara County and northern Baja California, with its distribution centered in San Diego County.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2611 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
T/E/1B.1 This bulbiferous herb is found in clayey substrate within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playa,
valley grassland, foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats between 82 and 3,999 ft. The blooming period is March to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)
-/-/- Most often found in the interior lowlands, plateaus, valleys, plains, rolling hills of grassland, agricultural land, ranches, and the edges of deserts.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

California Walnut Woodland
-/-/- HA
Plummer’s Mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae)
-/-/1B.2 This bulbiferous herb is found granitic, rocky substrate within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 328 and 5,577 ft. The blooming period is May to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Intermediate Mariposa-lily (Calochortus weedii var.intermedius) -/-/1B.2 This bulbiferous herb can be found in rocky or calcareous substrate within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 344 and 2,805 ft. The blooming period is May to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) -/SC/- The coastal population of this species occurs exclusively within the coastal sage scrub plant communities.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2612 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
further action is necessary.

Santa Ana Sucker (Castostomus santaanae)
T/SC/- Endemic to Los Angeles Basin southern coastal streams.

Habitat generalist, but prefer sand-rubble-boulder bottoms and cool, clear water with algae.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.australis)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found within the margins of marshes and swamps, vernally mesic valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pool habitats between 0 and 1,394 ft. The blooming period is May to November.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Smooth Tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp.laevis)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in alkaline soils within chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 0 and 2,100 ft. The blooming period is April to September.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Orcutt’s Pincushion (Chaenactis glabruiscula var. orcuttiana) -/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in sandy substrate within coastal bluff scrub and coastal dune habitats between 0 and 328 feet. The blooming period is January to August.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)
T/SC/- The most common habitat types for this species include sand spits, dune-backed beaches, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. Less common habitat types include bluff-backed beaches, dredged material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Rosy Boa (Charina trivirgata)
-/-/- Primary habitat consists of desert, arid scrub, brushland, rocky chaparral-covered foothills (particularly where moisture is available, as around springs, streams, and HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2613 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
canyon floors). Ranges throughout the Colorado and Mojave deserts and also occupies areas of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties from 0 to 4,000 ft. effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Salt Marsh Bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum) E/E/1B.2 This hemiparasitic annual plant is found in disjunct coastal salt marshes of southern and central California and adjacent to northern Baja California, Mexico. Plants have naturally patchy distributions in sites subject to only higher tidal influxes in coastal salt marshes.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Mexican Long-tongued Bat (Choeronycteris mexicana)
-/SC/- This species lives in a variety of habitats ranging from desert, montane, riparian, to pinyon-juniper habitats. They are most frequently found roosting in desert canyons, deep caves, mines, or rock crevices. In urban environments, these bats are known to use buildings for day roosts.

HP Several large ornamental trees
and light industrial buildings are present within the project area. Pre-construction surveys are recommended.

San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernanda)
FC/E/1B.1 This annual herb is found in coastal scrub, valley grassland, and foothill grassland habitats between 492 and 4,003 ft. The blooming period is April to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Long-spined Spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) -/-/1B.2 This annual herb is often found in clay soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, seeps, valley grassland, foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats between 98 and 5,020 ft. The blooming period is April to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Tidal-flat Tiger Beetle (Cicindela gabbii)
-/-/- Inhabits estuaries and mudflats along the coast of southern California. Generally found on dark-colored mud in the lower zone, but occasionally found on dry saline flats of estuaries.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2614 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Sandy Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela hirticollis gravida) -/-/- Found in moist sand near the ocean, e.g. in swales behind dunes or upper beaches beyond normal high tides.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela latesignata latesignata) -/-/- Occupies mudflats and beaches in coastal southern California.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) FC/E/- Ideal habitat for this species includes riparian areas with cottonwoods, willows, and English walnuts. Micro-habitat requirements include high canopy closure, high foliage volume, intermediate basal area, and intermediate tree height compared to average riparian habitat sites.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Goose Dune Beetle (Coelus globosus)
-/-/- Inhabitant on coastal sand dune habitat, primarily foredunes and sand hummocks. This species burrows beneath the sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Summer Holly (Camarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) -/-/1B.2 This evergreen shrub is found in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats between 98 and 2,592 ft. The blooming period is April to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Red-diamond Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber)
-/SC/- Inhabits arid scrub, coastal chaparral oak and pine woodlands, rocky grassland, and cultivated areas. On the desert slopes of the mountains, it ranges into rocky desert flats.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2615 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
-/-/- This species of butterfly occupies many open habitats including fields, meadows, weedy areas, marshes and roadsides. The primary food source of this species is common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca).

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Many-stemmed Dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
-/-/1B.2 This perennial herb is found in clayey substrate within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 49 and 2591 ft. The blooming period is April to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Laguna Beach Dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera)
T/T/1B.1 This stoloniferous herb is found in rocky substrate within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 33 and 853 ft. The blooming period is May to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
-/CFP/- Occurs primarily in lowlands and middle elevations, frequenting open savannas, pastures, grassland, marshes, and agricultural areas with scattered trees, where it perches on the tops of trees or on power lines. Also frequents the right-of-ways or medians of roadways.

HP Several large ornamental trees
occur within the project site. Nesting raptor preconstruction surveys are recommended if project impacts are scheduled to occur between February 15 and September 1.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) E/E/- This species occupies dense riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other wetlands where vegetation is often dominated by willows, seepwillow, or other shrubs and medium-sized trees. There may be an overstory of cottonwood, tamarisk, or other large trees, though this is not always this case.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata)
-/SC/- This species of turtle favors habitats with large numbers of emergent logs, boulders, or on top of aquatic vegetation, HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2616 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
where they aggregate to bask. project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
-/-/- Occupies lowland areas, particularly chaparral, coastal scrub, grassland, and wetland habitats.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Santa Ana River Woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp.sanctorum) E/E/1B.1 This perennial herb is found in sandy or gravelly substrate within chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 299 and 2,001 ft. The blooming period is May to September.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi)
E/SC/- Occupies brackish water habitats along the coast from San Diego to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, requiring fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus)
-/SC/- This species occupies many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels.

HP Several large ornamental trees
and light industrial buildings are present within the project area. Pre-construction surveys are recommended.

Cliff Spurge (Euphorbia misera)
-/-/2.2 This shrub is found in rocky substrate within coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and Mojavean desert scrub habitats between 33 and 1,640 ft. The blooming period is December to August.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2617 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Arroyo Chub (Gila orcuttii)
-/SC/- Requires slow water stream sections with mud or sand bottoms and feeds heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated invertebrates.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Los Angeles Sunflower (Helieanthus nuttallii ssp. parishii) -/-/1A This rhizomatous herb is found in coastal salt and freshwater marsh and swamp habitats between 33 and 5,495 ft. The blooming period is August to October.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Tecate Cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii)
-/-/1B.1 This evergreen tree is found in clay, gabbroic, or metavolcanic substrate within closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral habitats between 262 and 5,249 ft.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Mesa Horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp.puberula)
-/-/1B.1 This perennial herb is found in sandy or gravelly substrate within chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats between 230 and 2,657 ft. The blooming period is February to July, with an uncommon blooming period extending to September.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens)
-/SC/- Inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian habitats consisting of willow, blackberry, and wild grape. Forages and nests within 10 ft. of ground.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Hoary Bat -/-/- Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding.

HP Several large ornamental trees
and light industrial buildings

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2618 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
(Lasiurus cinereus) Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees and feeds primarily on moths. Requires a source of water.
are present within the project area. Pre-construction surveys are recommended.

Coulter’s Goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in marshes, swamps, playas, and vernal pool habitats between 3 and 4,002 ft. The blooming period is February to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) -/T/- Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for nesting habitat.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Heart-leaved Pitcher Sage (Lepechinia cardiophylla)
-/-/1B.2 This shrub is found in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and cismontane woodland habitats between 1,706 and 4,495 ft. The blooming period is April to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens)
-/SC/- Highly aquatic species that requires shoreline cover with submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation as important habitat characteristics.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
-/-/- Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. Distribution is closely tied to bodies of water. Maternal colonies are known to occur in caves, mines, buildings or crevices.

HP Several large ornamental trees
and light industrial buildings are present within the project area. Pre-construction surveys are recommended.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2619 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Mud Nama (Nama stenocarpum)
-/-/2.2 This annual/perennial herb is found in lake margins and riverbanks of marshes and swamps between 16 and 1,640 ft. The blooming period is January to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Gambel’s Water Cress (Nasturtium gambelii)
E/T/1B.1 This rhizomatous herb is found in freshwater or brackish marsh and swamp habitats between 16 and 1,083 ft. The blooming period is April to October.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) -/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found in coastal scrub, meadows, seeps, alkaline valley and foothill grassland, and mesic vernal pool habitats between 49 and 4,003 ft. The blooming period is April to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coastal Woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var.denudata) -/-/1B.2 This annual herb is found in coastal dune habitats between 0 and 328 ft. The blooming period is April to September.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia)
-/SC/- Occurs in coastal scrub habitats of southern California from San Diego County to San Luis Obispo County. Prefers moderate to dense canopies and are particularly abundant in rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana)
-/-/1B.2 This evergreen shrub is found in sandstone or gabbro substrate within chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 459 and 4,183 ft. The blooming period is May to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2620 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
is necessary.

Pocketed Free-tailed Bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus)
-/SC/- This species occurs in a variety of arid areas in southern California, including pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, and desert riparian habitats. Rocky areas with high cliffs are preferred.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Big Free-tailed Bat (Nyctinomops macrotis)
-/SC/- Occurs within low-lying areas of southern California and requires high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds principally on large moths.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
-/-/- Primary habitat includes ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams. Large nests are built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a good fish-producing body of water.

HP Several large ornamental trees
occur within the project site, and the project site is located approximately 2 miles from the Santa Ana River. Nesting raptor pre-construction surveys are recommended if project impacts are scheduled to occur between February 15 and September 1.

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) -/E/- Inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. Nests in Salicornia sp. on and about margins of tidal flats.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

California Beardtongue (Penstemon californicus)
-/-/1B.2 This perennial herb is found within chaparral, lower montane coniferous forests, and pinyon-juniper woodlands. It requires stony slopes and shrubby openings and sandy or granitic soils between 3,806 to 7,546 ft.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2621 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Allen’s Pentachaeta (Pentachaeta aurea ssp.
allennii)
-/-/1B.1 This annual herb is found within openings of coastal scrub, valley grassland, and foothill grassland habitats between 246 and 1,706 ft. The blooming period is March to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species and the project area is outside of its elevation requirements. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) E/SC/- Inhabits the narrow coastal plains from the Mexican border north to El Segundo, Los Angeles County. Prefers soils of fine alluvial sands near the ocean.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
-/SC/- Frequents a wide variety of habitats, but is most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) T/SC/- This species is an obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2,500 ft. in southern California. It requires low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes on mesas and slopes.

Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

White Rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum)
-/-/2.2 This perennial herb is found in sandy, gravelly substrate within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats between 0 and 6,889 ft. The blooming period is August to November, with a more uncommon blooming period extending from July to December.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Nuttall’s Scrub Oak (Quercas dumosa)
-/-/1B.1 This evergreen shrub is found in sandy or clay loam substrate within closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats between 49 and 1,312 ft. The HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2622 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
blooming period is February to April, with a more uncommon blooming period extending to August. required and no further action is necessary.

Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) E/E/- Found in salt marshes traversed by tidal sloughs where cordgrass and pickleweed are the dominant vegetation. Requires dense growth of cordgrass and pickleweed for nesting or escape cover and feeds on mollusks and crustaceans.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Santa Ana Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.
3)
-/SC/- Found in the headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers and may be extirpated from the Los Angeles River System. Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temps of 17-20°C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffle.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
-/-/- HA
Coast Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) -/SC/- Found in brush or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Chaparral Ragwort (Senecio aphanactis)
-/-/2.2 This annual herb is found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats between 49 and 2,625 ft. The blooming period is January to April.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Salt Spring Checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana)
-/-/2.2 This perennial herb is found in alkaline substrate within chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas between 49 and 5,020 ft. The blooming period is March to June.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2623 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
Southern California Saltmarsh Shrew (Sorex ornatus salicornicus) -/SC/- Found in coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties. Requires dense vegetation and woody debris for cover.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream -/-/- HA
South Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
-/-/- HA
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
-/-/- HA
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
-/-/- HA
Southern Dune Scrub -/-/- HA Southern Foredunes -/-/- HA Southern Interior Cypress Forest -/-/- HA
Southern Riparian Scrub -/-/- HA Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland -/-/- HA
Southern Willow Scrub -/-/- HA Western Spadefoot (Spea hammondii) -/SC/- Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2624 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
further action is necessary.

California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni)
E/E/- Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates, i.e. sandy beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas near the coastline.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
E/-/- Endemic to western Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties in areas of tectonic swales or earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub, and vernal pools. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools filled by winter and spring rains. Hatch in warm water later in the season.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Estuary Seablite (Suaeda esteroa)
-/-/1B.2 This perennial herb is found in coastal salt marshes and swamps between 0 and 16 ft. The blooming period is May to October, with a more uncommon blooming period extending to January.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

San Bernardino Aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
-/-/1B.2 This rhizomatous herb is found near ditches, streams and springs within cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane forest, coniferous forest, meadows, seeps, marshes, swamps, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 6 and 6,561 ft. The blooming period is July to November.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa)
-/SC/- Inhabits coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 kilometer to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

American Badger (Taxidea taxus)
-/SC/- Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils. Needs sufficient food and open, uncultivated ground for burrowing. Preys on HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2625 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
burrowing rodents. effort is required and no
further action is necessary.

Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii)
-/SC/- Inhabits coastal California from Salinas to northwest Baja California, from 0 to 7,000 ft. elevation. This species is highly aquatic, found in or near permanent fresh water, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Mimic Tryonia (Tryonia imitator)
-/-/- Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes, from Sonoma County south to San Diego County. Found only in permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types. Able to withstand a wide range of salinities.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland
-/-/- HA
Big-leaved Crownbeard (Verbesina dissita)
T/T/1B.1 This perennial herb is found in maritime chaparral and coastal scrub between 148 and 673 ft. Prefers steep, rocky, primarily north-facing slopes within 1.5 miles of the ocean in gravelly soils. The blooming period is April to July.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
E/E/- Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms below 2,000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis sp., or mesquite.

HA No suitable habitat is present
to support this species at the project site. No focused survey effort is required and no further action is necessary.

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2626 5/5/2026

COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Statusa

FED/STATE/

CNPS SPECIES REQUIREMENTS

SPECIFIC
HABITATb

PRESENT/
ABSENT

RATIONALE
a Status Codes
Federal E = Federally listed; Endangered PE = Proposed Endangered T = Federally listed; Threatened FC = Federal Candidate for Listing FSC = Federal Species of Concern D = Delisted State E = State listed; Endangered T = State listed; Threatened R = Rare (Native Plant Protection Act) CSC = California Species of Special Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Species bHabitat Presence/Absence Codes
P= The species is present. HP=Habitat is or may be present within Project footprint. The species may potentially be present. HPB=Habitat is or may be present within 200 ft. buffer. The species may potentially be present. HA= No habitat present and no further work needed. A= This species is absent.

CNPS 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
3 = Plants about which we need more
information
4 = Limited distribution (Watch List) 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California 0.3 = Not very endangered in California

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2627 5/5/2026
Appendix B Photographic Record
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2628 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
1 Photograph # 1
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location
Santiago St., immediately
adjacent to SARTC
parking lot.

Direction Northwest
Comment
View of storm damage to
the Lenwood Road
Mojave River Crossing
Photograph # 2
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location East corner of Santiago St.
and Santa Ana Blvd.

Direction Southwest
Comment
View of the Mojave River
channel upstream of the
Lenwood Road Mojave
River Crossing.

Photograph # 3
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location East corner of Santiago St.
and Santa Ana Blvd.

Direction Northeast
Comment
View of the Mojave River
channel downstream of
the Lenwood Road
Mojave River Crossing.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2629 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
2 Photograph # 4
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location
Santa Ana Boulevard at
the north entrance to the
SARTC
Direction Northeast
Comment
View of the OHWM
boundary. Note the 4‐foot
change in elevation and
significant change is
sediment character
between the OHWM and
the terrace above (seen in
the top right corner of the
photo).

Photograph # 5
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location SARTC parking facility
Direction North
Comment
View of the OHWM
boundary. Note the 4‐foot
change in elevation and
significant change is
sediment character
between the OHWM and
the terrace above (seen in
the center left of the
photo).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2630 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
3 Photograph # 6
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Southwest corner of Santa
Ana Blvd. and Fuller St.

Direction Southwest
Comment
View of the OHWM
boundary, along the toe of
the maintained levee.

Elevation of the top of the
OHWM directly
corresponds to that of the
northern OHWM/Active
Flood Plain boundary,
opposite the levee.

Photograph # 7
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Southwest corner of Santa
Ana Blvd. and Fuller St.

Direction Northeast
Comment
View of the OHWM
boundary, along the toe of
the maintained levee.

Photograph # 8
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Southwest corner of Santa
Ana Blvd. and Fuller St.

Direction Southwest
Comment
View of Fuller St. north of
Santa Ana Blvd., including
existing light industrial
facilities.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2631 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
4 Photograph # 9
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Southwest corner of Santa
Ana Blvd. and Fuller St.

Direction South
Comment View of Fuller St. south of
Santa Ana Blvd.

Photograph # 10
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northeast corner of Fuller
St. and Fruit St.

Direction South
Comment
View of Terminal St. south
of Fruit St., including the
OCDPW facility.

Photograph # 11
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northeast corner of Fuller
St. and Fruit St.

Direction East
Comment View of Fruit Street east
of Fuller St.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2632 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
5 Photograph # 12
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northwest corner of
Grand Ave. and Fruit St.

Direction West
Comment
View of Fruit Street west
of Grand Ave, including
adjacent commercial
property and single‐
family residential
housing.

Photograph # 13
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location
Northwest corner of
Grand Ave. and Santa Ana
Blvd.

Direction Southwest
Comment
View of Santa Ana Blvd.
west of Grand Ave.,
including Interstate 5
South on and off ramp
facilities.

Photograph # 14
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northwest corner of Sixth
St. and Terminal St.

Direction South
Comment
View of Terminal St. south
of Sixth St., including
existing light industrial
facilities.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2633 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
6 Photograph # 15
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northeast corner of E 4th
St. and Terminal St.

Direction North
Comment
View of Terminal St. north
of E 4th St., including
existing light industrial
facilities.

Photograph # 16
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location Northeast corner of E 4th
St. and Terminal St.

Direction West
Comment
View of the E 4th St.

Metrolink Railroad
crossing from Terminal
St., including existing light
industrial facilities.

Photograph # 17
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location E 4th St., immediately west
of Metrolink RR crossing.

Direction East
Comment
View of the E 4th St.

Metrolink Railroad
crossing, including
existing light industrial
facilities.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2634 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
7 Photograph # 18
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location North side of E 4th St. at
Metrolink RR crossing.

Direction North
Comment
View of the Metrolink
Railroad alignment north
of E 4th St.

Photograph # 19
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location North side of E 4th St. at
Metrolink RR crossing.

Direction South
Comment
View of the Metrolink
Railroad alignment south
of E 4th St.

Photograph # 20
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location
Southwest corner of
Stafford St. and Lincoln
Ave.

Direction Northeast
Comment
View of the Metrolink
Railroad alignment
adjacent to Lincoln Ave.,
north of Santa Ana Blvd.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2635 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project Photo Log
8 Photograph # 21
Photo Date 9/15/11
Location
Lincoln Avenue
immediately south of
intersection of Lincoln
Ave. and E Washington
Ave.

Direction North
Comment
View of Lincoln Avenue
near E Washington Ave,
including the Metrolink
Railroad alignment and
adjacent single‐family
residential housing.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2636 5/5/2026
Appendix C Plants and Wildlife Detected
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2637 5/5/2026
C-1 Inventory of Floral Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Status
CYCADS
Cycadaceae – Cycad Family
*Cycas revoluta Sago palm -

PTERIDOPHYTES
Equisetaceae – Horsetail Family
Equisetum hyemale horsertail -
Polypodiaceae – Polypody Family
*Nephrolepis obliterata sword fern -

GYMNOSPERMS
Cupressaceae – Cypress Family
*Juniperus chinensis Chinese juniper -
*Juniperus sp. juniper -
Pinaceae – Pine Family
*Cedrus deodara Deodar cedar -
*Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine -
DICOTS
Adoxaceae – Elderberry Family
Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderberry -
Aizoaceae – Fig-marigold Family
*Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot fig -
*Mesembryanthemum crystallinum iceplant -
Amaranthaceae
*Amaranthus albus tumbleweed -
Asteraceae – Sunflower Family
Conyza canadensis common horseweed -
*Gazania sp. gazania -
Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed -
*Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce -
*Picris echioides bristly ox-tongue -
*Sonchus oleraceus common sow-thistle -
Apocyanaceae – Dogbane Family
*Trachelospermum jasminoides star jasmine -
*Vinca major greater periwinkle -
Begoniaceae – Begonia Family
*Begonia semperflorens wax begonia -
Berberidaceae – Barberry Family
*Berberis aquifolium Oregon grape -
*Nandina domestica Heavenly bamboo -
Brassicaceae – Mustard Family
*Hirschfeldia incana perennial mustard -
Bignoniaceae – Bignonia Family
*Distictis buccinatoria scarlet trumpet vine -
*Jacaranda mimiosifolia jacaranda -
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2638 5/5/2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Buxaceae – Boxwood Family
*Buxus sp. boxwood -
Cactaceae – Cactus Family
*Opuntia ficus-indica Indian-fig -
Celastraceae – Staff-tree Family
*Euonymus sp. ornamental euonymus -
Convolvulaceae – Morning-Glory Family
*Ipomoea sp. morning-glory -
Euphorbiaceae – Spurge Family
*Chamaesyce maculata spotted spurge -
*Ricinus communis castor-bean -
Fabaceae – Pea Family
*Erythrina sp. coral tree -
Lamiaceae – Mint Family
*Lavandula sp. lavender -
*Rosmarinus officinalis rosemary -
Lauraceae – Laurel Family
*Cinnamomum camphora camphor tree -
Lythraceae – Loosestrife Family
*Lagerstroemia sp. crape myrtle -
Magnoliaceae – Magnolia Family
*Magnolia grandiflora southern magnolia -
Malvaceae – Mallow Family
*Hibiscus sp. ornamental hibiscus -
*Malva parviflora cheeseweed -
Moraceae – Fig Family
*Ficus benjamina weeping fig -
*Ficus carica common fig -
*Ficus pumila creeping fig -
Myoporaceae – Myoporum Family
*Myoporum sp. myoporum -
Myrtaceae – Myrtle Family
*Callistemon sp. dwarf bottlebrush -
*Eucalyptus citriodera lemon-scented gum -
*Syzygium paniculatum brush cherry -
Nyctaginaceae – Four-O’clock Family
*Bougainvillea sp. bougainvillea -
Oleaceae – Olive Family
*Fraxinus sp. ash -
*Ligustrum japonicum wax-leaf privet -
*Ligustrum lucidum glossy privet -
Passifloraceae – Passion Fruit Family
*Passiflora sp. passion vine -
Pittosporaceae – Pittosporum Family
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2639 5/5/2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status
*Pittosporum sp. mock orange -
Platanaceae – Sycamore Family
Platanus racemosa western sycamore -
Podocarpaceae – Podocarpus Family
*Podocarpus macrophyllus yew pine -
Portulacaceae – Purslane Family
*Portulaca oleracea common purslane -
Rosaceae – Rose Family
Heteromeles arbutifolia Christmas berry, toyon -
*Prunus persica nucipersica nectarine -
*Pyrus sp. ornamental pear -
*Rhaphiolepis indica Indian hawthorne -
*Rosa sp. ornamental rose -
Rutaceae – Rue Family
*Citrus sp. cultivated citrus -
Sapindaceae – Soapberry Family
*Cupaniopsis anacardioides carrot wood -
*Koelreuteria sp. goldenrain tree -
Solanaceae – Nightshade Family
*Petunia sp. ornamental petunia -
*Solanum sp. ornamental nightshade -
Theaceae – Tea Family
*Camellia sp. camellia -
Ulmaceae – Elm Family
*Ulmus sp. elm -
Verbenaceae – Vervain Family
*Lantana sp. lantana -
*Verbena sp. ornamental vervain -
Zygophyllaceae
*Tribulus terrestris puncture vine, caltrop -

MONOCOTS
Amaryllidaceae – Amaryllis Family
*Agapanthus sp. Lily-of-the-Nile -
Araceae – Arum Family
*Alocasia macrorrhiza elephant’s ear -
Arecaceae – Palm Family
*Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm -
*Phoenix roebelenii pygmy date palm -
*Syagrus romanzoffianum queen palm -
*Trachycarpus fortunei windmill palm -
*Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm -
Cannaceae – Canna Family
*Canna sp. red canna -
Iridaceae – Iris Family
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2640 5/5/2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status
*Dietes iridioides -
Liliaceae – Lily Family
*Agave attenuata foxtail agave -
*Aloe vera medicinal aloe
*Hemerocallis sp. daylily -
*Liriope muscari big blue lily turf -
*Liriope spicata creeping lily turf -
*Phormium sp. New Zealand flax -
*Sansevieria trifasciata Mother-In-Law’s tongue -
Musaceae – Banana Family
*Musa sp. cultivated banana -
Poaceae – Grass Family
*Bambusa multiplex fernleaf bamboo -
*Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens red brome -
*Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass -
*Digitaria sanguinalis crab grass -
*Festuca arundinacea tall fescue -
*Festuca glauca common blue fescue -
*Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass -
*Panicum miliaceum broom corn millet -
*Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass -
*Pennisetum setaceum rubrum red fountain grass -
*Saccharum sp. cultivated sugar cane -
*Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass -
Strelitziaceae – Bird of Paradise Family
*Strelitzia nicolai giant bird of paradise -
*Strelitzia reginae bird of paradise -
*Denotes non-native species.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2641 5/5/2026
C-2 Inventory of Faunal Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Status

INVERTEBRATES
Apidae –Bees
Apis mellifera European honey bee -
Hesperiinae – Grass Skippers
Hylephila phyleus fiery skipper -
Heliconiinae – Longwings and Fritillaries
Agraulis vanillae Gulf fritillary -
Scarabaeidae – Scarab Beetles
Cotinus sp. green fruit beetle -
BIRDS
Cathartidae – New World Vultures
Cathartes aura turkey vulture -
Columbidae – Pigeons and Doves
Columba livia rock dove -
Passeridae – Old World Sparrows
Passer domesticus house sparrow -
Sturnidae – Starlings
Sturnus vulgaris European starling -
Tyrannidae – Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe -

MAMMALS
Canidae – Canids
Canis familiaris domestic dog -
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2642 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N12

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2643 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Visual Impact Assessment
City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California
Federal Project Number: STPL 5063(136)
March 2014
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2644 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2645 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment i
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i Tables and Figures .....................................................................................................................ii Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary..............................................................................................................S-1 Chapter 1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................1-1

1.1 Methodology .....................................................................................................1-2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment.....................................................................................2-1

2.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 NEPA ..............................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 State Requirements.........................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Local and Regional Requirements...................................................2-2

2.2 Physical Setting ................................................................................................2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................3-1

3.1 Assessment Methodology.................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Evaluative Framework for Visual Resources....................................3-1

3.1.2 Construction-Period Impact Assessment Methodology....................3-7

3.1.3 Operational-Period Impact Assessment Methodology .......................3-7

3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.....................................3-12

3.2.1 Construction-Period Effects ...........................................................3-12

3.2.2 Operational-Period Effects.............................................................3-13

3.2.3 Cumulative Effects.........................................................................3-16 Chapter 4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................4-1 Chapter 5 References ......................................................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 Preparers.........................................................................................................6-1 Appendix A Key Observation Point Photos
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2646 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Visual Impact Assessment ii
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Tables and Figures
Page
Table 1 Existing Visual Quality at Key Observation Points ......................................................... 3-6 Table 2 Viewer Sensitivity and View Duration at All Key Observation Points along the Project Alignment ............................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3 Visual Quality at Key Observation Points under the Proposed Project ........................... 3-9 Table 4 List of Related Projects Proposed within the Project Viewshed .................................... 3-18 Page
Figure 1 Regional Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2 Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 3 Proposed Project Area ..................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3a Ultimate Layout ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 3b Ultimate Typical Section ................................................................................................. 1-7 Figure 3c Pedestrian Bridges and Railroad Bridge Cross Section ................................................... 1-8 Figure 4 Photo Vantages and Key Observation Points .................................................... Appendix A Figure 5 Existing and Simulated Views at KOP 1 ....................................................................... 3-14 Figure 6 Existing and Simulated Views at KOP 2 ....................................................................... 3-15 EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2647 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Visual Impact Assessment iii
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
Caltrans California Department of Transportation District 12 FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Plan
I Interstate
KOPs key observation points
msl mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SARTC Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center
SR State Route
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2648 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment S-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Executive Summary
The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse effects on visual resources under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Visual quality in the viewshed under the proposed project will remain low to moderate overall; and in only one instance, it will be further reduced from moderate to low: for residents in the Logan neighborhood north of Santa Ana Boulevard.

This reduction on visual quality is due to the visibility of the newly proposed underpass and grade separation bridge features in those views, as well as the removal of more than a couple dozen existing trees both along the Santa Ana Boulevard right-of-way and within the northerly portion of the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) parking area.

Pending completion of the master plans and related environmental review processes for the SARTC and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway (streetcar) projects—with which the proposed project is referenced—mulch, erosion-control wattles, temporary ground cover planting, and new concrete and metal fencing will dominate these residents’ views of the project during the construction period (eighteen months). However, once master plan design elements are determined, comparable replacement landscaping will be designed and installed in consultation with the City of Santa Ana, taking public input into consideration.

Because the project’s grade separation features are essentially at or below existing grade levels they will not substantially affect either east or west-facing views along Santa Ana Boulevard. As motorist or pedestrians enter the underpass while travelling eastward on Santa Ana Boulevard, they will experience only the briefest interruptions in views of the Lomas Ridge and the more distant Santa Ana Mountains ridgelines. Hence, no significant changes to key views will occur.

Residential viewers also will continue to have key east-facing views of the mountain ridgelines available to them. The loss of a number of mature trees will reduce visual quality in the shortterm and medium-term only (i.e., up to nine years). However, as stated above, once the SARTC master plan and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway projects are completed new comparable permanent landscaping will be installed within the project corridor in a manner that is consistent with City of Santa Ana General Plan-related design policies, SARTC and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway master plans, and that is appropriate to the designation of the SARTC as a locally-defined visual focal point or “landmark”. As a consequence, effects under NEPA upon visual resources and upon long-term visual quality are not considered substantially adverse.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2649 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Proposed Project
Visual Impact Assessment 1-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
The City of Santa Ana, in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is proposing to grade separate the existing Santa Ana Boulevard/Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Metrolink at-grade railroad crossing in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California (see Figures 1 and 2).

Currently, 66 trains cross Santa Ana Boulevard at this location on weekdays. The purpose of the proposed project is to eliminate the at-grade crossing of Santa Ana Boulevard and the OCTA Metrolink tracks by creating a grade separation, including depressing the profile of Santa Ana Boulevard under the adjacent Metrolink tracks in order to enhance traffic operations, improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety, improve emergency response times, and reduce existing traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard.

The proposed project will include the construction of an underpass bridge (i.e., roadway going under the railroad tracks) and concrete retaining walls, installation of paving, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, streetlights, landscape and irrigation features, drainage facilities, and the relocation of utilities. Two pedestrian bridges are proposed; one on each side of the proposed railroad bridge. The proposed pedestrian bridges would allow connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mix-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC. The exact bridge type and configuration will be determined during the final design phase of the project (see Figure 3c).

During construction the project proposes to construct a temporary two track shoofly railroad alignment for the purpose of constructing the underpass structure while maintaining railroad service, which is to be constructed beginning just south of the existing Metrolink crossing of I-5 and terminating south of the SARTC near 4th Street. This shoofly alignment will be located east of the existing railroad alignment. The project also proposes to construct a four-lane detour road south of Santa Ana Boulevard, which will be used by traffic during the construction of the underpass bridge and its approaches. The project also proposes to use Fruit Street as a detour route during the final phase of construction. New right-of-way, including both permanent acquisition and temporary easements, will be needed for the construction of the shoofly and detour road.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2650 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Proposed Project
Visual Impact Assessment 1-2
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Construction staging areas for the proposed project will potentially be located on the following properties: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 398-093-13, 398-092-12, and 398-207-01. The disposal site for the proposed project, if needed, will be selected by the contractor. Any environmental clearances related to the disposal site will be obtained by the contractor prior to construction.

The proposed project is included in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2011 costconstrained Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) (federal approval date of December 14, 2010 as project IS ORA082610. The project as proposed is consistent with the 2011 FTIP description.

1.1 Methodology
An assessment of the visual impacts associated with highway projects is required to satisfy the provisions of NEPA and CEQA under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans’ environmental review guidelines. The process used in this visual impact study generally follows the guidelines outlined in the publication Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, Federal Highway Administration, March 1981, as follows:
x Define the project setting and viewshed.
x Identify key views for visual assessment.
x Assess existing visual resources and viewer response. x Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives. x Assess changes to visual resources and predict viewer response to those changes. x Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives.
x Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

Aesthetic and visual quality analysis for the proposed project consists of a comparison of potential impacts to visual resources (particularly scenic resources, areas of historic interest, and natural open-space areas) within or adjacent to the project area. The potential impacts are identified by evaluating how the distinguishable (dominant) visual features (color, line, texture, form) that currently characterize the existing landscape will change if the proposed project were constructed. Of particular interest are locations where elevated structures, underpasses, or areas of extensive cut or fill are being proposed. Such an evaluation also considers the potential shadow effect of elevated structures and the light and glare effects of the proposed project.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2651 5/5/2026
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
UV55
UV91
UV261
UV73
UV57
UV72
UV22
UV133
UV90
UV133
UV90
UV261
UV UV72 91
UV261
UV57
UV22
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Irvine
Orange
Costa Mesa
Garden Grove
Fullerton
Tustin
Fountain Valley
Newport Beach
Westminster
Tustin Foothills
Placentia
Villa Park Villa Park
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Im San Diego
Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
Pacific
Ocean
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11) Project Site
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2652 5/5/2026
Project Location
French
Park
Logan
Park
Mabury
Park
Prentice
Park
P E Railroad
BNSF RR and Amtrak
15Th
Mcclay
Standard
Spurgeon
Elk
Oakmont
Santiago
Main
Parrie
Hardly
Grace
Breeden
Trinidad
Kilson
Obarr
8Th
6Th
Brown
Dresser
Myrtle
Mortimer
Martha
Greenwood
5Th
Penn
Eastside
Porter
11Th
Stafford
12Th
Terminal
Eastwood
Patricia
2Nd
Camile
Court
Hathaway
Dorman
9Th
10Th
Valencia
Palm
Vance
Minnie
18Th
Warren
Cedar
Concord
Custer
Wellington
Fuller
Fruit
Fairmont
19Th
Bush
20Th
21St
Catalina
Logan
16Th
3Rd
Santa Fe
Minter
Garfield Hickory
Civic Center
Bishop
Pine
Lacy
Washington
Chestnut
Walnut
Wright
French
Linwood
Poinsettia
Lyon
Orange
Cypress
Ha
Oak
lladay
14Th
Maple
4Th
Lincoln
Mabury
Santa Ana
17Th
Grand
Mortimer
5Th
4Th
Main
1St
§¨¦5
Figure 2
Project Location Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig02_Project_Location.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11)) ±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2653 5/5/2026

SANTIAGO ST

POINSETTIA ST

METROLINK

SANTA ANA

STATION

STAFFORD ST

CUSTER ST

LOGAN ST

WASHINGTON AVE

LINCOLN AVE

FULLER ST

TERMINAL ST
E 4TH STBREEDEN
I-5 NB
I-5 SB
I-5 SB OFF
I-5 SB ON

PHOENIX HOUSE

REHAB CENTER

FRUIT ST

EASTWOOD AVE

SANTA ANA
BLVD

GRAND AVE
APN
398-093-01 APN 398-194-21
APN
398-194-22
APN
398-194-20
APN
398-194-19
APN
398-194-18
APN
398-092-09
APN
398-092-08
APN
398-092-10
APN
398-092-11
APN
398-092-14
APN
398-092-13
APN
398-092-02
APN
398-093-08
APN
398-093-07
APN
398-093-05
398-093-06
APN
398-093-04
APN
398-194-15
APN
398-194-16
APN
398-194-17
APN
398-194-23
APN
398-194-14
APN
398-093-13
398-205
-07
APN
398-202-01
APN
398-201-11
APN
398-352-10
APN
398-204-04
APN
398-352-07
APN
398-207-01
APN
398-361-07
APN
398-208-01
APN
398-101-16
APN
398-101-15
APN
398-101-14 APN
398-101-13
APN
398-101-02
APN
398-361-01
APN
398-352-06
APN
398-342-12
APN
398-381-01
APN
398-381-04
APN
398-381-02
05 03
04 02
APN
398-381-12
APN
398-461-07
APN
398-461-19
APN
398-461-18
APN
398-361-03
APN
398-361-12
APN
398-093-03
APN
398-202-07
APN
398-202-08
APN
398-202-09
APN
398-202
-10
APN
398-205-01
APN
398-205-02
APN
398-205-03
APN
398-205-04
APN
398-205
-05
APN
398-205-09
APN
398-205-08
APN
398-381-03
APN
398-381-=13
APN
398-362
-01
APN
398-092-15
APN
398-092-12
APN
398-093-02
APN
398-342-18
Figure 3
Proposed Project Area
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI World Imagery
(2010)
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig03_Project_Area.mxd Date: 5/8/2012 26629 Legend
Parcels
Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Full Aquisition
Proposed Partial Aquisition
Temporary Construction Easement
Proposed Improvements
Detour Road
Proposed Temporary Shoofly
District: 12
County: Orange
Route Santa Ana Blvd
Federal Project No: STPL 5063 (136)
0 100 200 50
Feet
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2654 5/5/2026
Figure 3a
Ultimate Layout
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2655 5/5/2026
Figure 3b
Ultimate Typical Section
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2656 5/5/2026
Figure 3c
Pedestrian Bridges and Railroad Bridge Cross Section
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

EXHIBIT
2 City Council 22 – 2657 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment 2-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 2 Affected Environment

2.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal and state policies require that aesthetics and potential impacts to visual resources be considered in the design of the proposed project. In addition, local policies governing aesthetics, as codified in the City of Santa Ana General Plan will also be taken into consideration in developing the project. This chapter provides an overview of the pertinent federal, state, and local policies governing aesthetics.

2.1.1 Federal Requirements
NEPA
Although specific significance thresholds or screening criteria are not provided in NEPA or under Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, in its Declaration of Purpose, NEPA states that it is the responsibility of the federal government to: “…assure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings … and to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.” (Section 101 [42 USC § 4331].) To further emphasize that point, FHWA, in its implementation of NEPA (U.S.C. 109[h]), directs that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.

Among the ten types of issues listed in NEPA as important to consider, three indirectly touch upon aesthetics, including the potential to adversely affect the unique character of the affected resource, the potential for controversy, and the potential to violate laws and regulations (Section 1508.27, CEQ: Regulations for Implementing NEPA, Index and Terminology). For the proposed project, Caltrans’ serves as the lead agency, as delegated by FHWA under NEPA.

2.1.2 State Requirements
CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) stipulates that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with...enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities” (California Public Resources Code Section 21001[B]). According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment if it were to:
a) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b) substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2658 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-2
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
c) substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or,
d) create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Railroad grade separations are statutorily exempt from CEQA, as identified in Section 21080.13 of the Public Resources Code and in Section 15282(g) of the CEQA Guidelines. Statutorily exempt projects are excused entirely from the environmental review process and the requirements of CEQA; therefore, CEQA does not apply to the proposed project and is not discussed further in this VIA.

Caltrans
In accordance with Caltrans’ policy and memoranda that have guided landscape design policy across the Southern California region (e.g., Memorandum on Landscape Architecture from Bill Koval to Ron Kosinski of District 7 dated December 21, 1993), the proposed project will be designed in keeping with the local design context in which the work is proposed, and in consultation with the City of Santa Ana. Compliance with these design policies, along with additional best management measures discussed in Section 3.2, will also ensure that any changes that will have the potential to adversely affect the visual quality of the site or surroundings, or sensitive viewer groups, will be avoided.

2.1.3 Local and Regional Requirements
City of Santa Ana
The City of Santa Ana General Plan is the key policy document concerning aesthetics. The General Plan contains 16 elements, each of which was adopted at various times dating back to 1982. Six of the elements contain goals, policies and implementation strategies that are germane to the proposed project, including:
x Scenic Corridors (adopted September 1982)
x Circulation (adopted February 1998)
x Conservation (adopted September 1982)
x Land Use (adopted February 1998)
x Housing (October 2009), and
x Urban Design (adopted July 1998)
Urban Design Element
Within the Urban Design Element, there are four goals and several related policies that address aesthetics of public improvements within the City.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2659 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-3
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
x Goal 2 specifies that improvements in the physical appearance of neighborhoods should be implemented in a manner appropriate to the individual settings. x Policy 2.1 states that projects must acknowledge and improve upon their surroundings “... by using creative architectural design, streetscape treatments and landscaping”. x Goal 3 states that it is a goal of the City to promote pleasant travel experiences and a strong sense of orientation, achieving the goal through “..coordinated onsite and streetscape design,” including freeway slope landscaping, roadway median and parkway design.
x Policy 3.1 states that landscaping will be promoted on freeway slopes, roadway medians, x Policy 3.10 states that safe and pleasant bicycle and pedestrian routes are to be provided and they should link activity nodes and places of interest. x Policy 3.11 maximize the use of street trees and parkway landscaping to create a pleasant travel experience and positive City image.
x Policy 3.17 requires placement of overhead utility lines underground along major arterials to improve design quality.

Exhibit 4 (“City Form Map”) classifies SARTC as a visual focal point (Landmark) and Santa Ana Boulevard as an important “Path,” while Exhibit 7 (“Nodes”) defines the SARTC as being an important “Node.” “Nodes” are defined as areas of compatible and intensive activities (City of Santa Ana 1998a).

Goal 6 discusses the importance of creating a stronger sense of place, specifying that existing landmarks and memorable places be protected while also highlighting the place-making function of new development. Related policies call for providing clear sight lines to focal points and landmarks (Policy 6.1).

Exhibit 9 (“Landmarks”) identifies two visual landmarks in or near the project area: SARTC and the City Water Tower, located at Penn Way 0.3-mile north of the intersection with Santiago Street.

Goal 7 discusses how to enhance the sense of arrival in Santa Ana through design means and specifies policies that call for the coordinating public improvement design efforts, and establishing design standards for the City’s rail corridors and freeway on- and off-ramps by referencing them as points of entry (Policies 7.3 and 7.5, respectively).

Santa Ana Boulevard at the I-5 on- and off-ramps and the ATSF/Metrolink rail corridor at Santa Ana Boulevard are classified as being “Gateways” (Exhibit 10) into the City. Gateways are located at the City’s entry points and help to define boundaries and enhance the City’s identity, while reinforcing a sense of place (City of Santa Ana 1998a).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2660 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-4
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Scenic Corridors Element
The Scenic Corridors Element does not list previously designated scenic roads or identify potential scenic roads in the usual sense. Exhibit 4 depicts what are classified as being “primary corridors.” These “primary corridors” are significant transportation and activity features of the City, and are accessible from all freeways. At the edges of the City, these primary corridors form major City entry points, where strong statements of Santa Ana identity can and should be made.

Main and 4th Street appear to be the streets located closest to the project area that are classified as “Primary Corridors.” Specific goals that would be applicable to the project include:
x Goal 1 calls for improve the public image and expand the functional utility of the City’s linear transportation and open space corridors.
x Goal 3 calls for the conservation and enhancement of the existing scenic, functional and historic qualities of all streets and linear corridors.

Related objectives include ensuring that new development adjacent to the Downtown Civic Center and surrounding neighborhoods, key historic and recreation areas, and along circulation corridors, is made to “reinforce or create scenic linkages in those areas” (City of Santa Ana 1998a). Program measures to implement the goal include placing new and/or relocated utility lines underground, and adding freeway landscape screening (City of Santa Ana 1998a).

Circulation Element
The Circulation Element’s “Master Plan of Street and Highways” (Exhibit 1) classifies Santa Ana Boulevard as a “Primary Arterial” and Grand Avenue as a “Major Arterial.” The “Bikeway Master Plan” (Exhibit 2) depicts both Civic Center Drive and Santa Ana Boulevard, where they traverse the project area, as Class I bike routes (City of Santa Ana 1998b). The Circulation Element contains three goals that are directly germane to the proposed project, as well as a number of related policies:
x Goal 2 calls for “safe” utilization of the City’s transportation systems. x Goal 5 calls for creating “attractive circulation corridors to enhance” the City’s “image” x Goal 6 calls for protecting local streets from through traffic as a means of preserving neighborhood character.
x Policy 2.1 Limit the number of driveways on arterial streets to reduce vehicular conflict, and facilitate traffic flow.
x Policy 2.4 Support rail crossings to minimize conflicts with on-street traffic while enhancing passenger safety and comfort.
x Policy 5.3 calls for landscaped medians on major arterials. x Policy 5.4 recommends cooperation between the City and rail service providers to improve the aesthetics of rail corridors.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2661 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-5
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
x Policy 5.5 promotes the undergrounding of utilities along travel routes.

Circulation Element Exhibit A-6 (Roadway Reclassifications and Other Intersections Improvements), references the proposed project by showing the area adjacent to the SARTC as being slated for two unspecified intersection improvements (City of Santa Ana 1998b).

Conservation Element
In the Conservation Element, the key goal and objective related to aesthetics include:
x Goal 3, which calls for preserving and enhancing the aesthetic and environmental quality of the community, in part, by increasing “…the planting of trees, bushes, shrubs and flowers on public and private property” (Objective 3.2).

Related implementation programs would require that site plans incorporate existing landscape features, or that new landscaping be planted “...that expresses Santa Ana’s history, climate and cultures” (City of Santa Ana 1982).

Land Use Element
Overarching Goals expressed in the Land Use Element include promoting a balance of land uses that enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability while also “…preserving and improving the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods” (Goals 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Related policies include promoting street and parkway design that is attractive, functional as well as compatible with adjacent development (Policy 1.9), and encouraging development that is compatible in scale, architectural style and character with the adjoining neighborhood (Policy 3.5) (City of Santa Ana 1998c).

Housing Element
The Housing Element includes the goal of promoting the livability and sustainability of its neighborhoods by maintaining and creating parks, open space, planting trees, and greening parkways and medians in an effort to encourage walking and bicycling (HE 1.4) (City of Santa Ana 2009).

2.2 Physical Setting
The proposed project is located within the City of Santa Ana, in northern Orange County, and is approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the Santa Ana Civic Center. The project area is located approximately 32 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The nearest municipalities include the cities of Tustin, approximately one mile to the east, Orange approximately 1.5 miles to the north, and Garden Grove, approximately two miles to the west. Santa Ana serves as the governmental center for the County, and is home to federal government offices; it is also a major residential, commercial and industrial center within the region.

Santa Ana is sited upon essentially flat, low-lying plains within the Santa Ana River Basin’s Santa Ana Valley (Valley), and is approximately 110 mean feet above sea level (msl). The Valley floor rises quite gradually to the east such that much of the project area and the adjoining EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2662 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-6
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
neighborhoods to the south, north and west appear to be on flat terrain to a casual observer. The Loma Ridge rises approximately five miles east of the project area, within the easterly portions of Tustin and Lemon Heights. The Santa Ana Mountains rise approximately 10 miles to the east of the project area and attain a maximum height of 5,687 feet at Santiago Peak. The Santa Ana Mountains provide a visual backdrop to the City in east-facing views and serve as home to coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian woodland, oak woodland, and montane forest vegetation communities. The Loma Ridge, Santa Ana Mountains, and Santa Ana River are the key defining geographic features in the project setting.

Both the City and the Valley are highly urbanized, and characterized by extensive residential, commercial and industrial development. With a population density of 12,472 per square mile, Santa Ana is the fourth most densely populated city with a population of 300,000 or more in the United States. As is the case in the project area, residential districts occur in close proximity to industrial and commercial development, as well as the railroad corridors and freeways that serve the region. These transportation corridors include the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, which bisects the project area; I-5, which is located north and east of the project area; and State Route (SR-) 22 and SR-55, located two miles to the north and southeast, respectively.

The project area of potential effect (APE) contains a diverse collection of land use types, including residential, commercial, transportation, and industrial uses.

The project viewshed along and adjoining Santa Ana Boulevard is marked by nearly flat terrain, and provides moderately vivid east-facing views of the Loma Ridge and Santa Ana Mountains.

Industrial land uses and the presence of the BNSF/Metrolink railroad corridor and SARTC (train and bus station) are major visual components within the built environment along Santa Ana Boulevard. Industrial uses include the County facility yards, warehouses and manufacturing facilities housed in one-story rectangular buildings of utilitarian design. Important secondary visual elements within the project area include older, small-lot single-family residential development, located west of Santiago Street, south from Fruit Street, and north of Santa Ana Boulevard, as well as the new commercial/residential development (e.g., Santiago Lofts) centered at the southwest corner of Santiago Street and Santa Ana Boulevard.

The Santa Ana General Plan designates all the properties east of Santiago Street, and both south from Santa Ana Boulevard and east from Fuller Street along the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard, for “District Center” (DC) uses. Properties west from Fuller Street and north from Santa Ana Boulevard are designated for “Urban Neighborhood” (UN) uses. Such land use designations reflect the major re-envisioning of this neighborhood and make the SARTC a focal point as part of a densely developed, transit-oriented mixed-use residential/commercial/industrial destination. Planning for this development is at a preliminary stage only. The design specifics will be defined as part of the still pending SARTC Master Plan and the accompanying environmental review process.

Visual character within the project area is dominated by the SARTC facility—a large multiplestory, Neo-Spanish Colonial Revival structure with a red-colored mission tile roof, and a large tree-shaded surface parking lot—as well as the numerous utilitarian concrete and wood frame/stucco industrial buildings. This area also includes the Phoenix House Residential drug EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2663 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Affected Environment
Visual Impact Assessment 2-7
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
treatment and rehabilitation facility at 1207 E. Fruit Street. It is housed on a several acre-sized garden-like property and is bordered by Santa Ana Boulevard to the north. Along with the SARTC, the Phoenix House property is a key visual resource in the project area because of its Mission Revival style architecture . The Phoenix House can be seen from Fruit Street but is screened from most vantages by the tall shrubbery and clusters of evergreen trees that border the property on the east, west, and north (i.e., Santa Ana Boulevard) side.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2664 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment 3-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences

3.1 Assessment Methodology
The process used in this visual impact study generally follows the guidelines outlined in the publication Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, Federal Highway Administration, March 1981, as follows:
x Define the project setting and viewshed.
x Identify key views for visual assessment.
x Assess existing visual resources and viewer response. x Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives. x Assess changes to visual resources and predict viewer response to those changes. x Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives.
x Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

Aesthetic and visual quality analysis for the proposed project consists of a broad comparison of potential impacts to visual resources (particularly scenic resources, areas of historic interest, and natural open-space areas) within or adjacent to the project area. The potential impacts are identified by evaluating how the distinguishable (dominant) visual features (color, line, texture, form) that currently characterize the existing landscape will change if the proposed project were implemented. Of particular interest are locations where elevated structures, underpasses, or areas of extensive cut or fill are being proposed. The evaluation also addresses the potential shadow effect of elevated structures and the light and glare effects of the proposed project.

3.1.1 Evaluative Framework for Visual Resources
Using a Key Views Approach to Define the Visual Setting The guidelines provide two basic options for defining the visual setting: landscape units and/or key views. The key views approach was used in this analysis.

A key view is a point from which a select view is analyzed from the perspective of potential key viewer groups. The key view approach is useful when the views are largely homogeneous throughout the viewshed. The key view approach is well suited for evaluating a densely urbanized and developed setting such as exists within the project area.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2665 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-2
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
A viewshed comprises all the surface areas visible from an observer’s viewpoint. The limits of a viewshed are defined as the visual limits of the views from the proposed project. The viewshed also includes the locations of viewers likely to be affected by visual changes brought about by project features.

Within the evaluative framework, changes in the quality and character of visual resources in the viewshed are assessed by considering potential viewer response, as discussed in the following sections.

Determining Quality and Character of Visual Resources
Definition of Visual Character—The visual character of a view is described by the topography, land uses, scale, form, and natural resources depicted in the view. The assessment of the visual character is descriptive and not evaluative because it is based on defined attributes such as physical traits—including form, color, line and texture (pattern elements)—as well as pattern character traits—the dominance, scale, and diversity or continuity of visual elements.

Definition of Visual Quality—The visual quality refers to the aesthetics of the view.

Determining the quality of a view can be subjective because it is based in part on the viewer’s values and notions about what constitutes a quality setting. In an effort to establish an objective framework, this assessment applies the evaluative criteria (i.e., vividness, intactness, and unity) and qualitative rankings (low, medium, and high) presented in the FHWA guidelines.

FHWA guidelines state that this method should connect with public judgments of visual quality well enough to be able to predict those judgments. This approach to evaluating visual quality can also help identify specific methods for mitigating each adverse impact that may occur as a result of a project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows:
x Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns.
x Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
x Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual human-made components in the landscape.

Quantification of Visual Quality
Views of high quality may have topographic relief, a variety of vegetation, rich colors, impressive scenery, and unique natural and/or built features. When combined, the factors that establish the visual quality of a view (i.e., vividness, intactness, and unity) can be used to generate a numeric score. The scores, ranging from 1 to 7--with 1 being the lowest and 7 being the highest--are assigned for each of a project’s key viewpoints. These scores are added and then divided by 3 to get the overall visual quality score. The same is then done for the “with project” condition to develop a visual quality score reflecting the anticipated visual condition once the project has been constructed. The existing condition and “with project” condition scores can EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2666 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-3
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
then be compared to identify/quantify changes in visual quality. The formula for assessing visual quality is shown below.
(Vividness Score + Intactness Score + Unity Score) ÷ 3
= Overall Visual Quality
In this assessment, a rating of “7” indicates that a key view possesses high visual quality, and represents an arithmetic average (per the formula above) of the three criteria of vividness, intactness, and unity. Such views are remarkable for their quality. A score in the range from “5.5 to 7” signifies that the view possesses moderately high visual quality. Such views often possess a relatively high degree of vividness, but only moderate levels of intactness or unity.

A score in the range from “3.5 to 5.4” signifies moderate visual quality. Such views are only of moderate interest, possessing moderate levels of vividness, unity, and intactness.

By contrast, a visual quality score of “3.4” or “less” indicates that the view is of low or (very) low quality, respectively, and possesses uninteresting features showing little variety in vegetation and color. Significantly intrusive human-made visual elements are often present.

Assessing Viewer Response
Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual changes brought about by a highway or railroad project.

Viewer exposure is typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of viewer activity, duration of their view, speed at which the viewer moves, and position of the viewer. Because objects in the foreground have more detail, views from nearby locations are more detailed compared to objects that are indistinguishable in the distance. Viewers will experience the proposed project as a visual element to varying degrees in a particular viewshed, depending on distance or other intervening structures or obstacles.

Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewer’s concern for scenic quality and the viewer’s response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that otherwise appear unexceptional. The sensitivity of viewers in their perception of visual quality, as well as their sensitivity to changes in visual quality, varies based on familiarity with the view, sense of ownership of the view, and the nature of one’s activity while receiving the view. In turn, these considerations determine how much attention the viewer gives the view.

Duration of a view refers to the length of time the view is observed by a particular viewer group.

The view duration may be either short-term or long-term. Short-term views include fleeting or intermittent views, such as those visible from a moving source over a short distance (e.g., motorists’ views from moving vehicles). Long-term views are mainly constant views as experienced over an extended period of time (e.g., a view from a residential property or office building). Viewer group sensitivity increases as the duration of a view increases.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2667 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-4
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Residential viewers typically have a high level of sensitivity to visual quality and changes in visual quality, because of their familiarity with the view, investment in the area (e.g., homeowners, long-time residents), and sense of ownership of the view. In a way, the view from residences and their yards represents a visual extension of residents’ property, and changes in this view are noticeable and can result in strong positive or negative reactions.

Other viewers, with exceptions, usually have an average sensitivity to visual quality or change.

These include people on the local roadway system, such as commuting motorists and pedestrians. If they are traveling simply to get from one place to another for work reasons, or doing errands, their sensitivity is normally be average. However, at those times when they are traveling for pleasure, it is likely that they are somewhat more sensitive to their surroundings.

Recreationists also have a range of potential sensitivities. Players participating in team sports activities and spectators at such sports events are presumed to have a low to average sensitivity to the visual setting outside the playing field because their attention is generally intently focused on the playfield. By contrast, recreationists engaged in bicycling, hiking and running often have higher levels of sensitivity because they frequently choose recreational settings for their activities based on visual appeal.

Viewers in the project viewshed include residential viewers, commuting motorists, workplace viewers (workers in nearby commercial and industrial settings), as well as persons travelling for pleasure who may be present at the SARTC. An increasing number of recreationists traveling to and from the SARTC by bicycle also are anticipated when the bikeway is constructed in the future (at present, the timeframe for construction of the bikeway is uncertain).

Key Views
Because it is not feasible to analyze all the views in which the proposed project will be seen, it is necessary to select a number of key viewpoints that will most clearly display the visual effects of the proposed project. Key views also represent the primary viewer groups that will potentially be affected by the proposed project.

For purposes of this analysis, a view is considered key if at least one of the following circumstances apply:
x Visual resources are present, regardless of the quality of the view. The sensitivity of the affected viewer group is medium or high, and the duration of the view is long-term. x The quality of the view is medium or high, regardless of whether visual resources are present. The sensitivity of the viewer group is medium or high, and the duration of the view is long-term.
x The view is distinct, clear, and unobstructed from the highway or railroad to adjacent businesses and is viewed regularly by a large number of commuters. In this case, the viewer sensitivity is medium, and the view is long-term.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2668 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-5
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Definition of Visual Impact Levels
This visual impact assessment is intended to ensure that visual resources are adequately considered as part of the NEPA environmental review process. The following general criteria are used in making such an assessment:
x Criterion 1 (Character Consistency): A significant visual impact under NEPA would result if the proposed project would introduce new visual elements that would strongly contrast or be incompatible with the character of the existing landscape or key view.
x Criterion 2 (Obstruction of Views): A significant visual impact under NEPA would result if the proposed project would obstruct key views. The importance of a view is based on its character and quality, its viewers, and the duration of the view. For purposes of this analysis, a view is considered key if at least one of the circumstances referenced in the discussion of Key Views applies (see above).

Impacts are characterized by their potential levels of significance. x Very Low—Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to change in the visual environment. Project is unlikely to require mitigation. x Low—Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to change in the visual environment. Project may or may not require mitigation. x Moderate—Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer response. Impact can be mitigated within five years using conventional practices. x Moderately High—Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response or high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. Extraordinary mitigation practices may be required. Landscape treatment would be required and mitigation of impacts would generally take longer than five years. x High—A high level of adverse change to the resource or a high level of viewer response to visual change such that architectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate the impacts. Viewer response level is high. An alternative project design may be required to avoid highly adverse impacts.

The analysis identified sixteen specific key views that could be noticeably altered by the proposed project. The key views were chosen:
x to provide a representative cross-section for scenic quality, x to represent typical views along the alignment, and
x to represent views from a potential nearby sensitive viewer group (i.e., residents).

In addition, three of these representative views have been designated as key observation points (KOPs). These KOPs were chosen for analysis of the project area’s visual character and quality because they uniquely convey the visual character and quality of the railroad viewshed at locations where project features are proposed and/or where sensitive viewers are present.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2669 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-6
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
x KOP 1 (Photo 1) – The view at KOP 1 is looking southeast on Logan Street just north of Santa Ana Boulevard. The view is seen by dozens of residents living north of Santa Ana Boulevard along Logan Street.
x KOP 2 (Photo 11) – The view at KOP 2 is looking northeast along Santa Ana Boulevard at Santiago Street near the western edge of the project area. This view is seen by thousands of daily commuters, residents and workers en route to the neighborhood, the SARTC and I-5. The SARTC appears on the right edge of the photo figure. x KOP 3 (Photo 13) – The view at KOP 3 is looking northwest from the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center grounds, looking towards Santa Ana Boulevard. The view is limited to Phoenix House staff and residents.

The photographs documenting the sixteen specific key views, KOPs included, can be found in Appendix A, and the vantages for the key views are depicted in Figure 4 (see Appendix A).

Detailed discussion of current conditions at KOP 1 through KOP 3 follows. Table 1 shows existing visual quality at KOPs.

Table 1. Existing Visual Quality at Key Observation Points Key
Observation
Points Vividness Intactness Unity Average (V+I+U /3) Visual Quality Rating KOP 1 5 5 5 5 Moderate
KOP 2 4 3 2 3 Low
KOP 3 5 4 5 4.66 Moderate
Source: ICF International, November 2011
Viewer groups in two of the KOPs (KOPs 1 and 2) include motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents; however, the overwhelmingly majority of motorists are commuters traveling to the SARTC, accessing I-5, or driving cross-town to and from the downtown Santa Ana and the Santa Ana Civic Center. Although Santa Ana Boulevard is classified by the City of Santa Ana simply as a “Primary Arterial” (Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, Exhibit 1) the SARTC is considered a City “Landmark,” and a visual focal point, and both it and the I-5 on- and off-ramp are designated as a City “Gateways” (Urban Design Element, Exhibits 4, 9 and 10). In addition, Santa Ana Boulevard is designated as a Class I Bikeway corridor (Circulation Element, Exhibit 2). At present, only a small minority of the persons traveling along the project corridor are presumed to be bicycling or driving for pleasure or utilizing Santa Ana Boulevard as a route to an open space or leisure destination; none are presumed to enjoy travel on the street as a focus in and of itself. However, this is expected to change in the future after expansion of the SARTC, Santa Ana–Garden Grove Fixed Guideway and the proposed bikeway are completed. Viewer sensitivity and view duration vary somewhat at the three KOPs for the viewer group. Views at KOP 1 are accessed by dozens of residents (in general, a more sensitive viewer group), while those at KOP 3 are accessed by a small number of staff and residents at Phoenix House Rehab Center. Views at KOP 2 are viewed by large numbers of commuting motorists. Table 2 summarizes findings concerning viewer sensitivity and view duration for each viewer group.

The determination that viewer sensitivity is at best moderate at the KOPs is based on the low to moderate visual quality that characterizes this visual setting—particularly the prevalence of EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2670 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-7
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
utilitarian industrial development with a dull palette of colors (i.e., primarily white, gray, and light tan), uninteresting design elements, and the absence of substantial foreground and midrange visual resources. Secondary visual resources include ordinary evergreen trees and palms. Where present in this visual setting, such landscape features serve to elevate visual quality but only to moderate levels of visual quality. Far-off views of mountains also can be acquired from within the viewshed. Though considered important in local planning policy terms, the east-facing views within the project viewshed are only moderately vivid due to intervening foreground and middle-ground views and development. In addition, views of Santa Ana Boulevard by the most sensitive viewer group –residents—are generally constrained due to intervening industrial buildings and fencing.

Table 2. Viewer Sensitivity and View Duration at All Key Observation Points along the Project Alignment Viewing Group Viewer Sensitivity View Duration
Commuting Motorists Low Short-term
Motorists Driving for Pleasure Moderate Long-term
Pedestrians Moderate Long-term
Residents Moderate Long-term
Source: ICF International, November 2011

3.1.2 Construction-Period Impact Assessment Methodology Potential impacts will occur during construction if the construction activities will:
x substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding;
x create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

3.1.3 Operational-Period Impact Assessment Methodology
Potential impacts will occur during the operation of the project if the project will:
x result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; or x substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings; or
x substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of a the site and its surroundings; or
x create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The KOPs are described below in terms of existing visual quality and character, viewer group and viewer group sensitivity, visual resources present, anticipated changes to visual quality, character, and views. The descriptions of each KOP end with a discussion of the anticipated visual effect.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2671 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-8
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
KOP 1 (Photo 1) - Looking Southeast on Logan St., North of Santa Ana Blvd.

Photo 1 depicts current visual character and quality at KOP 1. The Spanish Colonial Revivalstyle SARTC, and the SARTC parking lot, trees and shrubbery, are the dominant mid-range elements in the view. The SARTC and its landscaping block views to the south beyond the SARTC property. Gray-colored pavement along Santa Ana Boulevard and Logan Street, as well as the parkway trees along Santa Ana Boulevard, are the dominant elements in the foreground view. No views of local mountains or foothills can be acquired from this vantage.

The evergreen trees and shrubbery, the white stucco exterior of the SARTC, the terra cotta color of its tile roofing, and the gray of the roadway paving are the principal colors seen in the view.

The setback of the SARTC building from Santa Ana Boulevard, the moderately dense landscaping found on its grounds, and the building’s massing—comprised, as it is, of a series of relatively small volumes—lends the primary mid-range feature in the view a pleasant, gardenlike quality. The view at this vantage is moderately vivid given the partial canopy of trees, shrubbery, and the attractiveness of the SARTC architecture, and displays a moderate degree of compositional unity and intactness, due to the essential absence of intrusive features, such as billboards, signs, and overhead utility wires. This gives the views at this vantage moderate visual quality (rating score = 5.0).

Viewer groups at this location consist of a small group of residents near the southern end of Logan Street, motorists traveling along Santa Ana Boulevard, commuters (including a small number of bicyclist commuters) utilizing the SARTC, and a small number of pedestrians who travel along Santa Ana Boulevard.

Changes in Visual Character
Currently foreground views at this vantage are dominated by paving. Under the proposed project design changes will include lowering the grade of Santa Ana Boulevard in order to construct an underpass bridge beneath the railroad tracks; installation of concrete retaining walls along the north side of the right-of-way and related safety fencing; and creation of a sloped embankment along the south side of the right-of-way. New paving, sidewalks, drainage systems, and a bikeway will also be installed, and right-of-way for the potential Garden Grove-Santa Ana Fixed Guideway alignment will be provided. Approximately 30 feet of the northern portion of the existing SARTC parking lot will be cleared and graded to accommodate a southward shift in the alignment of Santa Ana Boulevard. Current trees and shrubbery located within this area be removed, as well as parkway trees along Santa Ana Boulevard. Temporary groundcover planting will be installed within the reconfigured right-of-way as part of the proposed project.

No replacement trees will be installed however until after the SARTC master plan and the accompanying environmental review processes have been completed.

Mid-range views of the SARTC building and the trees and planting that closely adjoin it on the north will not change, even while all landscaping and paving closer to Santa Ana Boulevard will be removed.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2672 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-9
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Changes in Views
A majority of the proposed improvements will be essentially at ground level, and are occurring both within the current right-of-way and the northernmost portion of the SARTC property.

Because of this, the project will not affect significant views of local mountains and foothills.

Although the amount of paving that can be seen from this vantage will increase due to the widening of the public right-of-way, the project will not strongly contrast with existing visual character because paving is currently the dominant feature in foreground views at this vantage.

Effects
The change in visual quality is shown in Table 3. Visual quality under the proposed project will remain moderate, decreasing from 5.0 to 3.83. This is due to the new design features which include lowering the grade of Santa Ana Boulevard in order to construct an underpass bridge beneath the railroad tracks; installation of concrete retaining walls along the north side of the right-of-way and related safety fencing; and creation of a sloped embankment along the south side of the right-of-way. In addition, removal of existing Santa Ana Boulevard parkway trees, as well as landscaping in approximately the northern 30 feet of the SARTC property, will be a noticeable change from existing conditions. Hydroseeded groundcover will be the only replacement landscaping in the short- and intermediate-term, pending completion of the SARTC master plan and environmental review process. Replacement landscaping of commensurate quality will then be installed to address the removal of existing trees.

Table 3. Visual Quality at Key Observation Points under the Proposed Project Key
Observation
Point Vividness Intactness Unity
Existing
Average (from
Table 1)
Average
Under
Proposed
Conditions
(V+I+U/3)
Change
from
Existing
Conditions
Visual
Quality
Rating
KOP 1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.83 -1.17 Moderate
KOP 2 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 - 0.5 Low
KOP 3 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.66 4.0 - 0.66 Moderate
Source: ICF International, January 2011
KOP 2 (Photo 11) - Looking Northeast on Santa Ana Blvd. at Santiago St.

Photo 11 depicts current visual character and quality at KOP 2. The roadway along Santa Ana Boulevard dominates the foreground and mid-range view, framed by the SARTC parking lot, trees and shrubbery on the south, and property screening walls on the north. A moderate number of tall trees shade non-adjoining portions of the street. As in KOP 1, gray-colored pavement and the parkway trees along Santa Ana Boulevard are the dominant elements in the foreground view.

By contrast, the viewer can acquire far-off east-facing views of local mountains or foothills from this vantage.

The evergreen of the trees and shrubbery, and the gray of the roadway paving are the principal colors seen in the view. The setback of the SARTC building from Santa Ana Boulevard, the moderately dense landscaping found on its grounds—lends the secondary foreground feature in EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2673 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-10
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
the view a pleasant, garden-like quality. The view at this vantage is moderately vivid given the partial canopy of trees along Santa Ana Boulevard and the shrubbery on the SARTC property.

However, it displays a low degree of compositional unity and intactness because of the some of the features seen in the view, including traffic light poles, street signage, the presence of billboards, inconsistent security wall/building design materials/color and planting treatments found along the north side of the street. The non-contiguous nature of the street tree canopy along Santa Ana Boulevard also reduces intactness and visual unity. As shown in Table 1, this gives the views at this vantage low visual quality (rating score = 3.0).

Viewer groups at this location consist of motorists traveling along Santa Ana Boulevard, commuters (including a small number of bicyclist commuters) utilizing the SARTC, and pedestrians who travel along Santa Ana Boulevard and Santiago Street.

Changes in Visual Character
Currently foreground views at this vantage are dominated by paving. Under the proposed project design changes will include lowering the grade of Santa Ana Boulevard in order to construct an underpass bridge beneath the railroad tracks; installation of concrete retaining walls along the north side of the right-of-way and related safety fencing; and creation of a sloped embankment along the south side of the right-of-way. In addition, two pedestrian bridges are proposed; one on each side of the proposed railroad bridge. New paving, sidewalks, drainage systems, and a bikeway will also be installed, and right-of-way for the potential Garden Grove-Santa Ana Fixed Guideway alignment will be provided. The northern 30 feet of the current SARTC parking lot will be cleared and graded to accommodate a southward shift of Santa Ana Boulevard. Current trees and shrubbery within this area of the SARTC property will be removed, as well as parkway trees along Santa Ana Boulevard. Hydroseeded groundcover will be the only replacement landscaping in the short- and intermediate-term, pending completion of the SARTC master plan and environmental review process. Replacement landscaping of commensurate quality will then be installed to address the removal of existing trees.

Changes in Views
A majority of the proposed improvements are being proposed at ground level and within the current right-of-way and the northernmost portion of the SARTC property. Because of this, the project will not affect significant views of local mountains and foothills. Although the amount of paving that can be seen from this vantage will increase due to the widening of the public rightof-way, the project will not strongly contrast with existing visual character because paving is currently the dominant feature in foreground views at this vantage.

Effects
The change in visual quality is shown in Table 3. Visual quality under the proposed project will remain low, decreasing from a rating score of 3.0 to 2.5. This is due to the new design features being proposed at this location—lowering of the existing street grade to accommodate the grade separation, as well as the other features described above (Changes in Visual Character). In addition, removal of existing Santa Ana Boulevard parkway trees and landscaping in approximately the northern 30 feet of the SARTC property will be a noticeable change from EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2674 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-11
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
existing conditions. Hydroseeded groundcover will be the only replacement landscaping in the short- and intermediate-term, pending completion of the SARTC master plan and environmental review process. Replacement landscaping of commensurate quality will then be installed to address the removal of existing trees.

KOP 3 (Photo 13) – Phoenix House Garden/Sitting Area, Looking Northwest Photo 13 depicts current visual character and quality at KOP 3. The view is of the garden/sitting area at Phoenix House Rehab Center and consists of grass lawn shade trees, ramadas with picnic tables and benches are the key visual elements captured in the foreground and mid-range views.

Shrubbery and a screening wall terminate most of the view on the north. A moderate number of tall trees occur in clusters and shade portions of the grounds. Far-off east-facing views of local mountains or foothills can be acquired from this vantage.

The property’s evergreen trees, shrubbery and lawn provide the principal color seen in the view, and the clustered landscaping found on its grounds lends the view a pleasant, garden-like quality.

The view at this vantage is moderately vivid, given the attractive landscape features, and possesses a moderate degree of compositional unity and intactness, due to the minimal presence of intrusive man-made elements. The presence of I-5 to the northeast and gaps in the fencing and landscaping along Santa Ana Boulevard allowing views of street traffic reduce visual quality slightly. As shown in Table 1, this gives the views at this vantage moderate visual quality (rating score = 4.66).

Viewer groups at this location consist of entirely of Phoenix House residents and staff members.

Changes in Visual Character
Currently foreground and mid-range views at this vantage are defined by grass lawn, trees, shrubbery and ramadas in a garden-like setting. Under the proposed project, design changes would be very modest, and include a very minor land take along Santa Ana Boulevard and removal of a section of the existing perimeter wall and shrubbery in order to accommodate the southward shift of the roadway. No other features on the property will change.

Changes in Views
A majority of the proposed improvements at this vantage point will be essentially at ground level, and will be screened from view by proposed replacement fencing and vines. The project will not affect significant views of local mountains and foothills and after the construction period project elements will not be seen from this vantage due to the screening proposed along the northern property line. Therefore, the project will not strongly contrast with existing visual character.

Effects
The change in visual quality is shown in Table 3. Visual quality under the proposed project will remain moderate, decreasing slightly from a rating score of 4.66 to 4.0. This is due to the small take that is proposed along the north property line. The take will necessitate removal of a portion of the existing perimeter wall and the abutting shrubbery, thereby temporarily exposing more EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2675 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-12
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
extensive views of Santa Ana Boulevard than can be acquired currently. However, installation during the construction period of new screening fencing planted with vines will address that effect in visual terms.

3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Although noticeably altering visual character in the project viewshed due to the proposed removal of a majority of the existing landscape features, the proposed project is not expected to result in effects that will be considered adverse under NEPA due to the fact that existing visual quality is low to moderate. The proposed project will not introduce new structural elements that will block existing views that exhibit high visual quality. Also, improvements will expand existing transportation features. Non-native ornamental trees are present; however, there are no rock outcroppings or other geologic features within the project area. Temporary changes to resident and motorist views due to the removal of mature trees that serve as secondary visual resources will occur as a result of the construction of the project; however, the removal of this existing landscaping will be addressed through new plantings as part of a comprehensive landscape/design treatment approach implemented in conjunction with key related projects, including the SARTC Master Plan and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project.

The Phoenix House, a visual resource, is present in the project area, but will not be directly affected by the proposed project. The shrubbery that partially screens the property from Santa Ana Boulevard will be removed; however, new fencing planted with vines will be installed as part of the proposed projectto replace the shrubbery proposed for removal.

3.2.1 Construction-Period Effects
Accompanying the Santa Ana Boulevard improvements, effects will result from: ground clearing, excavation to construct the undercrossing, establishment of temporary construction easements sites on adjacent properties, construction of the railroad crossing over the undercrossing at the Metrolink railroad crossing, barricade installation, as well as the erection of minor street structures and signage required to temporarily detour a portion of the traffic to Fruit Street. A rather noticeable effect is the anticipated removal of more than two dozen extant street trees during the ground clearing and excavation process along Santa Ana Boulevard, the northerly portion of the SARTC, County facilities yard, and Phoenix House properties. Other potential visual effects will result from construction staging activities proposed on properties abutting the project area, including the delivery and stockpiling of construction materials and the placement of construction equipment, as well as daytime-only construction activities; no nighttime work requiring high-intensity lighting is proposed. However, given the existing lowto-moderate level of visual quality in the project viewshed, this minor reduction in overall visual quality during the construction period will not be considered substantially adverse under NEPA.

3.2.2 Operational-Period Effects
Changes in visual quality as a result of the proposed project are noted above in Table 3. As mentioned previously, viewer sensitivity is low to moderate, being highest for residents with direct views of the project. Visual quality under the proposed project will remain low to moderate overall. No substantially adverse changes to key views will occur as a result of the proposed project (i.e., east-facing views to distant hill/mountain ridgelines; views of local EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2676 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-13
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
landmarks such as the City’s Water Tower to the north). In part, that is because the roadway will be lowered to create the underpass and not elevated. Although existing visual quality within the viewshed is not high at present, the introduction of the underpass along Santa Ana Boulevard and cul-de-sac-terminating streets will change the visual character due to the change in sightlines from neighborhood streets. Those changes will increase the visibility of roadways and of roadrelated infrastructure elements while reducing the vegetation within the public right-of-way and along the north side of the SARTC. The loss of mature landscaping, including the removal of more than two dozen trees, as well as shrubbery, will reduce visual quality in the short- and medium-term (from one to nine years) because installation of new, comparable replacement landscaping will likely be delayed until planning for the SARTC expansion and the Santa AnaGarden Grove Fixed Guideway projects is completed. The timeline for these decisions is expected to be a minimum of five, possibly up to ten, years away.

The project calls for relocating Santa Ana Boulevard approximately 30 feet south of its existing alignment, to construct a utility corridor on the north side of the existing roadway, and to maintain the existing lane configuration of three lanes in each direction (see Figures 3A, 3B, and 3c). In addition to a new public sidewalk, an approximately 42-foot corridor is being reserved along the southerly portion of the alignment for a future bikeway, streetcar right-of-way proposed under the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project, as well as a new embankment with a 4:1 (i.e., horizontal: vertical ratio) ground slope. Landscaping removed as part of the project will not be reintroduced in the short-term or medium-term. Mature trees and shrubbery within the footprint of the roadway expansion along the south border of Santa Ana Boulevard will be replaced with hydroseeded groundcover that includes flowers. At the Phoenix House property, fencing will be planted with vines intended to last for a period up ten years potentially. In addition, no special architectural enhancement elements are proposed to be installed as part of the new grade separation structure and underpass retaining walls (see existing and simulated views at KOPs 1 and 2 as depicted in Figures 5 and 6). Once planning for the SARTC expansion and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway projects is completed it is assumed that a more permanent landscape treatment and design enhancement plan will be developed for Santa Ana Boulevard, and that this will ultimately result in the installation of landscape and design enhancements of superior quality to what currently exists within the project corridor. It is further anticipated that any such landscape and design treatment will be developed in consultation with the city of Santa Ana, with meaningful community input. As a result, no long-term adverse changes to visual resources or substantial change in the visual quality ratings will result. As a consequence, and given existing low-to-moderate levels of visual quality, substantial adverse operational-period effects will not occur under NEPA.

Installation of new street lighting on the north and south sides of the redesigned roadway, and in the underpass, is being considered for safety purposes; however, the details for the lighting have not been developed as of this date. Potential scenarios call for lighting element placements at approximately 200-foot intervals, or greater, on either one or both sides of the roadway.

Although the specific fixture type has not been determined as yet, it is anticipated that the lighting elements will utilize energy-efficient technology (e.g., light emitting diode [LED] units, powered by solar units). These lighting selections will be subject to design review, made with community input, and designed and installed to avoid glare and spillover lighting effects, as well as other adverse changes to visual quality.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2677 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-14
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2678 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-15
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
t
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2679 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-16
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project

3.2.3 Cumulative Effects
A list of related projects includes a combination of some fifteen improvement programs and/or physical construction projects within the project viewshed (Table 4). Of these, one of the largest, the Citywide Residential Street Repair Program is an operational improvement program that will have no discernable effect on aesthetics. This project calls for street repair and curb and sidewalk pavement repair and/or replacement only. No demolitions, landscaping removal or other design improvements are proposed that will have any discernable effect on visual resources. Eleven other projects within the project viewshed call for construction new apartment housing or rehabilitation of existing apartment housing; however, these projects are expected to improve visual quality by replacing existing deteriorated buildings or vacant properties. The Transit Zoning Code will provide new zoning requirements for new infill development and will allow for the reuse of existing structures within and adjacent to the project study area. These projects will incorporate both architectural and new landscape features consistent with City urban design policies and the newly adopted Transit Zoning Code.

The two largest cumulative projects are the SARTC expansion project and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project. The SARTC expansion is ambitious in scope and calls for the transformation of the current SARTC as a multi-use, transit-oriented development site that will adaptively reuse and showcase the present train station while incorporating significant new commercial, light industrial, and residential development on the property, as well as new public spaces and landscaping features. Planning for the project is still underway and design plans are at least five years away. The Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project is also related to the proposed project, as it establishes streetcar services connecting the SARTC along portions of Santa Ana Boulevard, and alongside the Santa Ana Grade Separation, with a proposed new transportation center in Garden Grove. The effect of the above-referenced cumulative projects on visual character and quality is expected to be positive rather than adverse.

The area of effect for cumulative effects to visual resources consists of a viewshed extending out one-mile north, west, and south from proposed project alignment. Due to the significant changes to the viewshed east of the project area at I-5, and the visual barrier posed by the freeway as an elevated visual element, the cumulative effect viewshed terminates at I-5.

Visual quality within the project corridor viewshed was assessed as low-to-moderate, with visual quality ratings at the three key observation points ranging from 3.0 (low) to 5.0 (moderate). The ratings were generally highest where concentrations of mature trees were present, property maintenance levels were high, and pleasing architectural elements were also present (e.g., SARTC).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2680 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-17
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Table 4. List of Related Projects Proposed Within the Project Viewshed Project Address/Location Project Description
Santa Ana Regional
Transportation Center
Expansion (Timeframe
Uncertain. Tentatively 2017 or
later)
1000 Block E.

Santa Ana Blvd.

Construction of a new train station on the east side of the railroad tracks on County facilities yard property; adaptive re-use of existing train station; new onsite transit-oriented mixed use development with the objectives of
accommodating increased Metrolink train service,
facilitating intermodal transfers in manner appropriate to the neighborhood setting. Project would incorporate the Santa Ana Grade Separation and the Santa Ana-Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway (streetcar) Projects
Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed
Guideway Project (Timeframe
Uncertain. Tentatively 2017 or
later)
Project corridor
includes E. Santa
Ana Blvd.

Would connect the SARTC with a new transportation
center that would be built in Garden Grove. Project calls for embedding the tracks in the pavement, and would
include stations at one-quarter and half-mile intervals City of Santa Ana Citywide
Residential Street Repair
Program (Timeframe: 2008-
2013)
Multiple Locations
throughout Santa
Ana, including
Mabury St.
(between Fruit &
17th Streets;
Poinsettia St.
(between Santa
Ana Blvd.: and
Brown St.)
Five-year program to rehabilitate roadway pavement,
including repair or full replacement of concrete curb and sidewalk of up to 100 miles of streets. No aesthetic
enhancements (viz., landscaping, street furniture) are
proposed as part of the project
Transit Zoning Code – EIR
approved June 2010.
over 100 blocks
and 450 acres
located in the area
west of I-5, north of
First Street, and
between Grand
Avenue and Flower
Street and south of
Civic Center Drive
The primary objective of the proposed project is to provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods, to allow for the reuse of existing structures, and to provide a transit-supportive, pedestrianoriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure.

Housing Development (under
plan review)
801 E. Santa Ana
Blvd.
12-unit affordable/special needs housing development
Housing Development (under
plan review)
714 E. Santa Ana
Blvd.
12-unit courtyard apartment development
Housing Development (under
plan review)
801 E. Brown St. 13-unit courtyard apartment development Housing Development (in plan
check)
600 N. Lacy St. 74-unit courtyard apartment development Housing Development
(proposed)
501-515 E. 5th St. Rehabilitation of 4-unit apartment building Housing development
(proposed)
606-620 E. 5th St. 4-unit apartment development
Housing development
(proposed)
601-607 E. 5th St, Housing rehabilitation project
Housing development
(proposed)
615-621 E. 5th St. 3-unit housing rehabilitation project Housing development
(proposed)
712 E. 5th St. Rehabilitate one unit of housing
Housing development
(proposed)
901-905 E. 5th St. New residential infill development
Housing development
(proposed)
802-804 E. Santa
Ana Blvd.

New residential infill development
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2681 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences
Visual Impact Assessment 3-18
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Source: City of Santa Ana online development activity report, dated November 2011. Information was supplemented by conversations with City staff members Jason Gabriel (Public Works) and Vince Fregoso (Planning) during January, 2012.

It is not anticipated that the project in relation to the other related projects that fall within the project viewshed will result in cumulative effects to aesthetics. No local scenic vistas or corridors are present within the project viewshed, and the Caltrans Scenic Highways and Eligible Scenic Highways list identifies no scenic corridor that is any nearer than eight miles from the project area. Even within the SARTC precinct (as partly documented in KOP 1), visual resources are limited to clusters of mature evergreen trees and moderate-quality, somewhat faroff views of the local mountains. Also, although more than two dozen mature trees, as well as shrubbery, will be removed for the project and will not be replaced in the short- and mediumterm (in order to accommodate ongoing master planning for the SARTC expansion, etc.), the proposed project will apply mulch, erosion control wattles and install high-quality hydroseeded groundcover planting appropriate for the short-to-medium-term, in accordance with Caltrans’ best management practice, and in cooperation with the City.

Finally, the proposed project will not introduce new structural elements that will block existing key views of mountain ridgelines. That is because improvements will largely be located at or below grade. In vicinity of the Phoenix House property, the most design-sensitive element would be removal of the hedges that screen the facility from Santa Ana Boulevard. However, it is expected that temporary landscaping will be installed to address the loss of this existing planting in the short-to-medium-term, including installing fencing planted with vines, and applying a layer of mulch and erosion control wattles, followed by other hydroseeded groundcover planting during the short- and medium-term, until the final high quality landscaping, including replacement trees, for the related projects is implemented.

Given the low-to-moderate visual quality at present and the plans for substantial new long-term landscape improvements, adverse effects to visual quality are not anticipated.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2682 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment 4-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 4 Conclusions
The proposed project will not result in adverse effects to visual resources under NEPA. Visual quality under the proposed project generally will remain low overall, and in only one instance will be further reduced from moderate to low—this due to the visibility of the newly proposed road features in those views and the anticipated short-term to medium-term delay in installing comparable quality replacement landscaping. No changes to significant views will occur (i.e., east-facing views to hill/mountain ridgelines). The loss of mature trees will reduce visual quality over a period of five or more years; however, because comparable replacement landscaping will be installed per City and Caltrans’ best management practice, no adverse effects would occur under NEPA.

Caltrans and FHWA mandate that a qualitative aesthetic approach be taken to mitigate for visual quality loss in the project area. The proposed project fulfills these requirements because it is expected that it will address the actual loss of visual quality that will occur in the project viewshed within five to ten years of when the project is implemented by installing comparable replacement trees for those proposed for removal, where feasible, and groundcover where full right-of-way takes would necessitate demolition and/or where right-of-way design constraints will preclude installation of replacement trees. The project will be implemented in adherence to the guidance found in Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual and other Caltrans memoranda regarding landscape design policy, which mandates consideration of the local design context in which the work is proposed and obtaining the input of local governmental agencies. In addition, the project will be designed and implemented with the concurrence of the District Landscape Architect.

In summary, substantial adverse effects under NEPA are not anticipated.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2683 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment 5-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 5 References
California Department of Transportation. 2007. Standard environmental Reference, Chapter 27:

Visual and Aesthetics Review. Available:<http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/ community/ch27via/chap27via.htm>. Accessed: October 2011.

California Department of Transportation. 2011. Scenic Highways and Eligible Scenic Highways List, Orange County, California.

Available:<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/sceniccahisys4.htm>. Accessed: October 2011.

City of Santa Ana 1982. City of Santa General Plan Conservation Element. Adopted September 1982.

City of Santa Ana. 1998a. City of Santa General Plan Urban Design Element. Adopted July 1998.

City of Santa Ana. 1998b. City of Santa General Plan Circulation Element. Adopted February 1998.

City of Santa Ana. 1998c. City of Santa General Plan Land Use Element. Adopted February 1998.

City of Santa Ana. 2009. City of Santa General Plan Housing Element. Adopted October 2009 City of Santa Ana. 2011. City of Santa Ana General Plan. Available:<http://www.ci.santaana.ca.us/generalplan/default.asp>. Accessed: October 2011.

City of Santa Ana. 2011. City of Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center Expansion.

Available:<http://santaanatransitvision.com/SARTC_master_plan.html>. Accessed:

October 2011.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environmental Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation. March 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.

Washington, DC.

Contacts
Telephone conversations with Jason Gabriel, Public Works Department and Vince Fregoso, Planning Department, City of Santa Ana. January 2012.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2684 5/5/2026
Visual Impact Assessment 6-1
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Chapter 6 Preparers
Carson Anderson, Architectural Historian/Environmental Planner. M.A. Architectural History, University of Virginia; B.A. Architecture, College of Environmental Design, University of California at Berkeley. Twenty-seven years of experience doing community design review and planning, CEQA/NEPA environmental analysis, visual impact evaluations, architectural historyrelated research and writing, and historic preservation planning work.

Thomas Cherry, ASLA, Registered Landscape Architect License # 3660). B.S. Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University; A.A. Architectural Graphics, Grossmont Junior College. Twenty-six years of experience as a Landscape Architect, Visual Analyst, Construction Manager/Monitor, and Project Manager specializing in project design, governmental processing, habitat mitigation and monitoring guidelines, construction documents, and visual analysis.

Timothy Messick, Graphics Specialist/Visual Simulations. Graphic Designer/Illustrator/Environmental Scientist. M.A. and B.A. in Biology and Botany, respectively, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Nearly thirty years experience doing aerial photographic interpretation, preparing maps, photo simulations, designing interpretive exhibits, and website development.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2685 5/5/2026
Appendix A Key Observation Point Photos
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2686 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-1
Photo 1 (KOP 1) - View South Across Santa Ana Blvd. From Logan St. of SARTC
Photo 4 – View South at Santa Ana Blvd. Railroad Crossing EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2687 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-2
Photo 3 –View Southeast, Across Santa Ana Blvd. at Logan St. (SARTC on right)
Photo 2 –View Southwest Along Santa Ana Blvd. at Logan St.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2688 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-3
Photo 5 – View North of Santa Ana Blvd. Railroad Crossing Photo 6 – View North Along Fuller St. at Santa Ana Blvd.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2689 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-4
Photo 7 – View South, County Facilities Yard, Fuller St. at Santa Ana Blvd.

Photo 8 – View North From the SARTC Pedestrian Bridge
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2690 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-5
Photo 9 – View East Over County Facilities Yard From SARTC Pedestrian Bridge
Photo 10 – View South From the SARTC Pedestrian Bridge
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2691 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-6
Photo 11 (KOP 2) – View Northeast Along Santa Ana Blvd. at Santiago St.

Photo 12 – View Southwest, Corner of Santiago St. and Santa Ana Blvd.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2692 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-7
Photo 13 (KOP 3) – Garden/Sitting Area, Phoenix House, View Northwest Photo 14 –View West, Santa Ana Blvd. at I-5 Freeway (Phoenix house on Left)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2693 5/5/2026
Appendix A. Key Observation Point Photos
A-8
Photo 15 – View West Along Santa Ana Blvd at Fuller St.

Photo 16 – View East Along Santa Ana Blvd., Just East of Fuller St.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2694 5/5/2026
")
") ")
")")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")")
!"^$
Santa Ana
Regional
Transportation
Center
Phoenix House
Rehab Center
Breeden
3rd St
Logan St
Fuller St
Santiago St
6th St
Santa Ana Blvd
Stafford St
Santa Fe St
Custer St
Fruit St
Civic Center Dr
Brown St
5th St
n
Garfield St
4th St
St
Terminal St
Washington Ave
Lincoln Ave
Grand Ave
Eastwood Ave
08 10 09
05 04
16 15
14 12
07 06
02 03
KOP 3
KOP 2
KOP 1
Figure 4
Key Observation Points
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source:ESRI (2010),
ICFI (2011)
0 100 200 400
Feet
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\VIA\Fig04_KOP.mxd JK & SS (12-06-11) Legend
Key Observation Point
") Photo Figure Vantage
") KOP 1 (Photo Figure 1)
") KOP 2 (Photo Figure 11)
") KOP 3 (Photo Figure 13)
Photo Direction
Construction Boundary
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: Federal Project Number: STPL 5063(136) EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2695 5/5/2026

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N13

RELOCATION IMPACT MEMORANDUM
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2696 5/5/2026
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ∙ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT DRAFT RELOCATION IMPACT MEMORANDUM 10-EX-3 (REV 12/2005) (Form #)
State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Transportation

M e m o r a n d u m
To: REGION/DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER Date: July 27, 2012

REGION/DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER
REGION/DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH CHIEF File: District 12 Orange County
STPL 5063(136)
From: Department of Transportation – District 12
Right of Way Relocation Assistance
Subject: Draft Relocation Impact Memorandum
It has been determined there is no significant impact to owners, tenants, businesses or persons in possession of real property to be acquired who would qualify for relocation assistance benefits or entitlements under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970.

The City of Santa Ana, in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is proposing to grade separate the existing Santa Ana Boulevard/OCTA Metrolink atgrade railroad crossing in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California (see Figures 1 and 2).

The proposed project would include the construction of an underpass bridge (i.e., roadway going under the railroad tracks) and retaining walls, installation of paving, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, streetlights, landscape and irrigation features, drainage facilities, and the relocation of utilities.

During construction the project proposes to construct a temporary two-track shoofly railroad alignment for the purpose of constructing the underpass structure while maintaining railroad service, which is to be constructed beginning just south of the existing Metrolink crossing of I-5 and terminating south of the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center near 4th Street. This shoofly alignment would be located immediately to the east of the existing railroad alignment.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2697 5/5/2026
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ∙ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT DRAFT RELOCATION IMPACT MEMORANDUM 10-EX-3 (REV 12/2005) (Form #)
The project also proposes to construct a two-lane detour road south of Santa Ana Boulevard, which would be used by vehicular traffic during the construction of the underpass bridge and its approaches, and to use Fruit Street as a detour route during the final phase of construction. New right-of-way, including both permanent acquisition and temporary easements, would be needed for the construction of the shoofly alignment and detour road.

A field review of the proposed project was conducted to determine the potential impact on the residential and nonresidential units. No residential properties would be displaced by the project.

The project would affect 20 distinct nonresidential properties (refer to Figure 3). Of these, nine nonresidential properties (composed of 12 parcels) would be fully acquired and would result in displacement requiring relocation (refer to Table 1). An additional two nonresidential properties (APN 398-101-15 and 398-101-16) would be partially acquired (sliver takes) and would require some property reconfiguration but would not result in displacement. Eight properties, including portions of two of the partially acquired properties mentioned previously, would require a temporary construction easement (refer to Table 2).

Based on real estate listings and the professional opinions of two local commercial real estate agents, there appears to be a sufficient supply of adequate sites to relocate all of the displacees within the immediate vicinity of the City of Santa Ana. Given the availability of suitable properties in the immediate vicinity of the project, displacement and relocation of businesses would not result in substantial hardship. Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended.

Table 1. Description of Nonresidential Properties to Be Relocated (Full Acquisition) No. APN
Building
Size
(square
feet)
Owner/
Tennant
Inhabited
Property Type
(Existing Use)
Assessed
value
as of 2011
(in $)
Number of
Employees
1 398-093-03 12,500 Tenant Industrial
(automotive parts) $463,630 1
2 398-093-04
398-093-05 5,000 Tenant Industrial (textile
manufacturing) $9,371 4
3 398-093-06 5,000 Tenant Industrial (funeral
services) $372,424 4
4 398-093-07 5,000
Appears
vacant;
although
may be
occupied
by
Gulledge
Machine
Works
Industrial (vacant) $55,972 5-10
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2698 5/5/2026
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ∙ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT DRAFT RELOCATION IMPACT MEMORANDUM 10-EX-3 (REV 12/2005) (Form #)
No. APN
Building
Size
(square
feet)
Owner/
Tennant
Inhabited
Property Type
(Existing Use)
Assessed
value
as of 2011
(in $)
Number of
Employees
5 398-092-02 8,500 2 Tenants
Commercial
(optometry clinic
and textile
marketing and
design)
$1,289,638 NA1
6 398-093-13
398-093-08
2 buildings:
7,200 &
5,400
Tenant
and vacant
Industrial (office
supply
distribution and
vacant)
$1,539,730
NA1
7 931-104-67
931-104-68
(formerly
398-342-18)
2 buildings:
44,000 &
8,500
Tenant
Industrial
(geotechnical
engineering)
$4,300,000 13
8 398-207-01
Multiple,
totaling
5,750
Owner Government
(vehicle storage) $192,689 NA1
9 398-208-01 None Owner Government
(vehicle storage) Unknown 0
Sources: Loopnet.com Property Records (January 2012), and Field Survey (January 2012), AECOM 2012; Cortera Inc, 2012. 1 NA= Not Available. 2010 U.S. Census did not provide employment data for these properties. Chapter 10 of the Caltrans Right-ofWay manual states, “Draft reports do not need an exact count of the number of persons being displaced.” (pg. 10.02-4) Table 2. Partial Acquisitions and Temporary Construction Easement Locations Not Requiring Relocation
Assessor Parcel
Number (APN) Owner Name
TCE Square
Footage
Required
Partial
Acquisition Area
(square feet)
398-092-13 County of Orange 6,953 --
398-093-01 Santa Ana Industrial Co. 655 --
398-101-15 Phoenix Houses of
California, Inc. 2,604 1,169
398-101-16 County of Orange 11,500 14,453
398-361-07 County of Orange 38,074 --
398-361-12 Batool Japalaghi 14,828 --
Source: AECOM 2012
Any person (individual, family, corporation, partnership, or association) who moves from real property or moves personal property from real property as a result of the acquisition of the real property, or required to relocate as a result of a written notice from the City of Santa Ana from the real property required for a transportation project is eligible for “Relocation Assistance.” All EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2699 5/5/2026
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2700 5/5/2026
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
UV55
UV91
UV261
UV73
UV57
UV72
UV22
UV133
UV90
UV133
UV90
UV261
UV UV72 91
UV261
UV57
UV22
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Irvine
Orange
Costa Mesa
Garden Grove
Fullerton
Tustin
Fountain Valley
Newport Beach
Westminster
Tustin Foothills
Placentia
Villa Park Villa Park
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Imperial San Diego
Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11) Project Site
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2701 5/5/2026
Project Location
French
Park
Logan
Park
Mabury
Park
Prentice
Park
P E Railroad
BNSF RR and Amtrak
15Th
Mcclay
Standard
Spurgeon
Elk
Oakmont
Santiago
Main
Parrie
Hardly
Grace
Breeden
Trinidad
Kilson
Obarr
8Th
6Th
Brown
Dresser
Myrtle
Mortimer
Martha
Greenwood
5Th
Penn
Eastside
Porter
11Th
Stafford
12Th
Terminal
Eastwood
Patricia
2Nd
Camile
Court
Hathaway
Dorman
9Th
10Th
Valencia
Palm
Vance
Minnie
18Th
Warren
Cedar
Concord
Custer
Wellington
Fuller
Fruit
Fairmont
19Th
Bush
20Th
21St
Catalina
Logan
16Th
3Rd
Santa Fe
Minter
Garfield Hickory
Civic Center
Bishop
Pine
Lacy
Washington
Chestnut
Walnut
Wright
French
Linwood
Poinsettia
Lyon
Orange
Cypress
Halladay
Oak
14Th
Maple
4Th
Lincoln
Mabury
Santa Ana
17Th
Grand
Mortimer
5Th
4Th
Main
1St
§¨¦5
Figure 2
Project Location Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig02_Project_Location.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11)) ±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2702 5/5/2026

SANTIAGO ST

POINSETTIA ST

METROLINK

SANTA ANA

STATION

STAFFORD ST

CUSTER ST

LOGAN ST

WASHINGTON AVE

LINCOLN AVE

FULLER ST

TERMINAL ST
E 4TH STBREEDEN
I-5 NB
I-5 SB
I-5 SB OFF
I-5 SB ON

PHOENIX HOUSE

REHAB CENTER

FRUIT ST

EASTWOOD AVE

SANTA ANA
BLVD

CITY OF SANTA ANA
ATTACHMENT N14

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2704 5/5/2026
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
Community Impact Assessment
City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California
Federal Project Number: STPL 5063(136)
The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327 March 2014
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2705 5/5/2026
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2706 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
S-1
Summary
This Community Impact Assessment (CIA) considers how the proposed project would affect the people, neighborhoods, communities, businesses, and larger social and economic systems. The findings of the CIA are as follows:

Land Use
The purpose of the proposed project is to eliminate the at-grade crossing of Santa Ana Boulevard and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Metrolink tracks by creating a grade separation, including depressing the profile of Santa Ana Boulevard under the adjacent Metrolink tracks to: enhance traffic operations; improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety; improve emergency response times; and reduce existing traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard. The project would result in minor changes to the surrounding land use through the displacement of eight nonresidential properties (on 11 parcels). This land would be incorporated into the new grade separation project which is identified in many of the long-term plans and projects identified by the City of Santa Ana for the study area. The project would not require the change in zoning or General Plan land use designation. The proposed project would not introduce an incompatible use in the area.

Growth
The proposed project is designed to enhance traffic operations; improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety; improve emergency response times; and reduce existing traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, directly or indirectly. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth would be consistent with those contemplated in existing regional and local plans for the area. No adverse effects are expected.

Community Character
While there would be some access and circulation impacts during construction; the closures would not seriously affect community cohesion, and would not result in the division of an existing community or separate residences from existing community facilities. Implementation of a construction-period Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that informs the public about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction is expected to satisfactorily avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects.

The project would have beneficial effects on community cohesion when measured against the existing railroad operations on the community, since the proposed pedestrian bridges and grade separation would improve connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2707 5/5/2026
Summary
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
S-2
potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC).

Utilities/Emergency Services
Closure of Santa Ana Boulevard would not affect the response times for fire, police and emergency service providers during construction. The project would provide for detours and there are several alternative access routes that local emergency services providers can use to access to all areas of the City. Implementation of the construction-period TMP that informs public services providers about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction is expected to satisfactorily avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects. In the long-term, access within the study area would be improved.

Some of the utilities within the construction boundary would need to be relocated. The affected utilities would be relocated in accordance with State law and regulations and City policies.

There would be ongoing coordination between the City, affected agencies, and utility companies in order to minimize potential disruption of utility service; therefore, no adverse effects would occur.

Relocations
Up to eight nonresidential properties (on 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project and would need to be fully acquired, and an additional two properties would be affected by partial acquisitions. When conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended, the project would not result in adverse effects.

Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The project would result in some access and circulation impacts during construction.

Implementation of the construction-period TMP that informs the public about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction is expected to satisfactorily avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects.

The project would result in the loss of parking during construction from the placement of the detour road on the existing Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) parking lot; however, there is ample parking in the existing SARTC parking structure which is underutilized.

The proposed project would also remove 28 spaces at the County of Orange Public Works Construction and Facilities Operations Yard located on Fruit Street (APN 398-208-01 and 398- 101-16) in order to accommodate the realignment of Santa Ana Boulevard and the proposed construction detour road; however, the project would relocate and reconfigure the existing parking in this area and would provide for 90 new parking spaces.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2708 5/5/2026
Summary
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
S-3
Environmental Justice
There is a low-income population in the study area, which warrants environmental justice considerations. The technical studies addressing noise, air quality, visual resources, and hazardous materials/waste indicate that some potential adverse effects are expected as a result of the proposed project. Measures to avoid, minimize, or reduce impacts have been included into the project in order to ensure that impacts, including adverse impacts on environmental justice populations, do not occur.

Cumulative Impacts
The effects of the project are not expected to be cumulatively considerable.

Summary of Major Potential Impacts from Alternatives
Potential Impact Proposed Project
Consistency with the City General Plan No impacts. Project is consistent with City’s General Plan.

Consistency with the regional plans No impacts. Project is consistent with adopted regional plans.

Consistency with adopted local plans No impacts. Project is consistent with adopted local plans.

Parks and Recreation No impacts.

Growth No impacts.

Farmland/Timberland No impacts.

Community Character and Cohesion No impacts.

Utilities/Emergency Services
Utilities - Utilities would need to be relocated during construction.

Emergency Services - There would be a long-term benefit by improving level of service. Short-term traffic delays could occur due to construction activities.

Relocations
Housing Displacements None. No impacts.

Business Displacements
Up to eight nonresidential properties (on 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project, and would need to be fully acquired and an additional two properties would be affected by partial acquisitions.

Utility Displacements Some utilities would need to be relocated during the construction of the project.

Environmental Justice No impacts.

Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian
and Bicycle Facilities
During construction, drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the project study area could experience delays and minor inconveniences due to temporary street and sidewalk closures/detours and other constructionrelated delays.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would not result in adverse effects to land use, parks and recreation, growth, farmland/timberland, community character and cohesion, and environmental justice. Minimization measures have been included into the project in order to minimize impacts to visual resources, noise, air quality, utilities/emergency services, relocation, hazardous materials, and traffic and transportation.

Therefore, the project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact to these resource areas.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2709 5/5/2026
Summary
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
S-4
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2710 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
February 2014
i
Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................ S-1 Chapter 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................1-1

1.1 What is a Community Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Laws and Regulation ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........................................... 1-1

1.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ............................................... 1-1

1.2.3 NEPA Assignment ....................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.4 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 ....................... 1-2

1.2.5 Executive Order (EO) 12898 ........................................................................ 1-2

1.2.6 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and as amended in 1987. ........................ 1-2

1.2.7 Other Relevant Laws .................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Assessment Process and Methodology Used ................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Role of the Public ............................................................................................................ 1-3

1.5 Project Description and Study Area ................................................................................. 1-3 Chapter 2 Land Use .........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Existing and Future Land Use.......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 2-9

2.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 2-13

2.2 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans ....................................................... 2-14

2.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 2-14

2.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 2-16

2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 2-17

2.3 Farmlands/Timberlands ................................................................................................. 2-18

2.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 2-18

2.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 2-18

2.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 2-18

2.4 Parks and Recreation ..................................................................................................... 2-18

2.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 2-18

2.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 2-19

2.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 2-20 Chapter 3 Community Character.....................................................................................3-1

3.1 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-14

3.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-18

3.2 Economic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3-19

3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-19

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-22

3.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-27

3.3 Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................... 3-28

3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-28

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-33

3.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-36 EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2711 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
ii

3.4 Relocations..................................................................................................................... 3-37

3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-37

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-37

3.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-39

3.5 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 3-39

3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-39

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-40

3.5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-49 Chapter 4 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities......................4-1

4.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Caltrans Facilities and the Local Street System ........................................... 4-1

4.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.1 Caltrans Facilities and the Local Street System ........................................... 4-6

4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures..................................................... 4-15 Chapter 5 Public Involvement .........................................................................................5-1 Appendix A Relocation Impact Memorandum
Appendix B References Used and Contacts
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits
Appendix D List of Preparer
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2712 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
iii
List of Tables and Figures
Table Page
1 Approved Local Development Projects within the Study Area .................................................... 2-8 2 Temporary Construction Easements Not Requiring Relocation ................................................. 2-11 3 Description of Full and Partial Acquisitions ............................................................................... 2-12 4 Parks and Recreation Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Study Area ............................................ 2-19 5 Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Race (2010) ...................................... 3-3 6 Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Ethnicity (2010) ................................ 3-4 7 Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Age (2010) ........................................ 3-4 8 Population Counts for the City of Santa Ana (1990-2011) ........................................................... 3-5 9 Projected Population, Housing, and Employment ........................................................................ 3-8 10 Existing Regional and Local Housing Characteristics – Type (2000) ........................................ 3-11 11 Existing Regional And Local Housing Characteristics – Occupancy (2010) ............................. 3-12 12 Existing Regional and Local Housing Characteristics – Tenure (2010) ..................................... 3-13 13 Affordable Housing .................................................................................................................... 3-13 14 County of Orange Economic Statistics, 2007 ............................................................................. 3-19 15 City of Santa Ana Economic Statistics, 2007 ............................................................................. 3-20 16 Displaced Business Affected by the Project ............................................................................... 3-23 17 Community Facilities .................................................................................................................. 3-29 18 Capacity and Enrollment of Schools ........................................................................................... 3-30 19 Fire, Police, and Emergency Medical Services ........................................................................... 3-31 20 Utilities within the Limits of Disturbance................................................................................... 3-32 21 Utilities within the Limits of Disturbance................................................................................... 3-35 22 Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Income/Poverty (1999) ................... 3-40 23 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................ 4-3 24 Santa Ana Boulevard Roadway Segment Analysis ...................................................................... 4-7 25 Alternative Route Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................ 4-7 26 Existing and Projected Intersection LOS .................................................................................... 4-10 27 Existing (2011) Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Delay Analysis ................................................. 4-13 Figure Page
1 Regional Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 1-7 2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 1-9 3 Project layout .............................................................................................................................. 1-11 4 Resource Study Area and Land Use Map ..................................................................................... 2-3 5 Census Tract Map ......................................................................................................................... 2-5 6 Community Facilities .................................................................................................................. 2-21 EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2713 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
iv
List of Abbreviated Terms
ACBMs asbestos containing building materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADL aerially deposited lead
ASTs above ground storage tanks
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIA Community Impact Assessment
City City of Santa Ana
CMP Orange County Congestion Management Program
COZEEP Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program
dB decibels
DOF California Department of Finance
EDD State of California Employment Development Department EO Executive Order
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
fps feet per second
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GCD Government Center
HCPs Habitat Conservation Plans
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HOV high-occupancy vehicle
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
I-5 Interstate 5
IEOC Inland Empire Orange County
I-OZ Industrial Overlay Zone
ISA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 LBP lead-based paint
Lmax maximum sound level
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2714 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
v
MDA major development areas
mph miles per hour
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NCCPs Natural Community Conservation Plans
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NSR Noise Study Report
OC Orange County
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCIWMD Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
proposed project Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions
RIM Relocation Impact Memorandum
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvements Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SAPD Santa Ana Police Department
SARTC Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center
SAUSD Santa Ana Unified School District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD Southern California Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison Company
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
TCEs temporary construction easements
TMP Traffic Management Plan
TV Transit Village
UC Urban Center
UN Urban Neighborhood
USTs underground storage tanks
WORK Center Work/Opportunities/Resources/Knowledge Center EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2715 5/5/2026
Table of Contents
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
vi
This page was intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2716 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This Community Impact Assessment (CIA) is prepared for the Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project by the City of Santa Ana (City), in coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in accordance with Caltrans standards as defined in the Standard Environmental Reference. The information in this document has been prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other substantive environmental laws applicable to the subjects addressed in this document.

Per authority under “NEPA Assignment,” the environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S. Code 327.

1.1 What is a Community Impact Assessment
The purpose of a CIA is to identify, discuss, and analyze how the community itself might be potentially impacted by the project.

NEPA requires consideration of social and economic impacts of projects in the preparation of environmental documents.

Indirect or cumulative impacts are discussed in the general impact sections of Chapters 2 through

5. 1.2 Laws and Regulation

1.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA is a California statute passed in 1970 to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. Caltrans is the “lead agency” under CEQA for all transportation projects on the State Highway System.

Railroad grade separations are statutorily exempt from CEQA, as identified in Section 21080.13 of the Public Resources Code and in Section 15282(g) of the CEQA Guidelines. Statutorily exempt projects are excused entirely from the environmental review process and the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, CEQA does not apply to the proposed project and is not discussed further in this report.

1.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA, enacted in 1970, is a United States (U.S.) environmental law that established a U.S. national policy promoting the enhancement of the environment and also established the EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2717 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-2
President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Caltrans is the “lead agency” under NEPA for the majority of transportation projects on the State Highway System that have federal funding. See also responsibilities under NEPA Assignment.

1.2.3 NEPA Assignment
Oversight of the NEPA environmental process for transportation projects has historically been the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In August 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law a federal transportation reauthorization bill called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU). SAFETEA-LU expired on September 30, 2009. The $286.4 billion measure was intended to improve and maintain the surface transportation infrastructure in the United States, including the interstate highway system, transit systems around the country, bicycling and pedestrian facilities, and freight rail operations. Congress renewed its funding formulas ten times after its expiration date until replacing the bill with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012.

1.2.4 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statues, requires there be no discrimination in federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability (religion is a protected category under the Fair Housing Act of 1968).

1.2.5 Executive Order (EO) 12898
Signed by President Clinton in 1994, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies, and addresses environmental justice in low-income and minority communities.

1.2.6 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and as amended in 1987.
“The Uniform Act” intends (1) to provide uniform, fair and equitable treatment of persons whose real property is acquired or who are displaced in connection with federally funded projects; (2) to ensure relocation assistance is provided to displaced persons to lessen the emotional and financial impact of displacement; (3) to ensure that no individual or family is displaced unless decent, safe and sanitary housing is available within the displaced person's financial means; (4) to help improve the housing conditions of displaced persons living in substandard housing; and (5) to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreement and without coercion.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2718 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-3

1.2.7 Other Relevant Laws
There are other laws that involve community impact analysis:
• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) incorporates Sections 109(h) and 128 of Title 23 (Highways) of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends the protection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the disabled, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations and transportation and other services.

1.3 Assessment Process and Methodology Used
This CIA analyzes the possible impacts that the proposed Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project (proposed project) would have on the community surrounding the project area. The CIA has been prepared in accordance with the FHWA’s Community Impacts Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation (Publication No. FHWA-PD-96-036).

The following sections describe the existing land use and planning, population and housing, and community facilities and services in the proposed project area. The community profile has been prepared in accordance with Caltrans’s Standard Environmental Reference, Chapter 24, Community Impacts (Department 2004), and the Environmental Handbook Volume 4 – Community Impact Assessment (2011). A field survey was conducted in February 2012 and documentation was gathered from appropriate city and regional websites and agencies. In addition, federal, state, and local demographic resources were used, such as the U.S. Census.

1.4 Role of the Public
A brief presentation of the project was made to the Santa Ana City Council on November 28, 2011. The presentation included a brief overview of the project, the proposed project schedule, and potential dates for future public outreach meetings. In addition, a public information meeting was held on December 18, 2013 from 6:00 to 8:30 pm at the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) at 1000 East Santa Ana Boulevard, in the City of Santa Ana.

Refer to Chapter 5, Public Involvement, for additional information and details on the public information meeting.

1.5 Project Description and Study Area
The City of Santa Ana, in coordination with Caltrans, is proposing to grade separate the existing Santa Ana Boulevard/Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Metrolink at-grade railroad crossing in the City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California (see Figures 1 and 2).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2719 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-4
The existing at-grade crossing is used by several passenger rail lines including Metrolink Orange County and Inland Empire/Orange County lines and the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner line. For Metrolink lines, the existing service schedule includes the following:
• Orange County (OC) Line: Two trains per hour per direction in both the weekday AM and PM peak hours and 22 trains per day in each direction. • Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line: Two trains per hour per direction in both the weekday AM and PM peak hours and 20 trains per day in each direction.

Amtrak Pacific Surfliner operates with one train per day in the peak hour each way and 13 to 14 trains per day each direction. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) freight rail traffic also uses this crossing with approximately 10 freight trains per day during off-peak hours, resulting in a total of 66 train crossings during a typical weekday (AECOM 2012).

The proposed project would include the construction of an underpass bridge (i.e., roadway going under the railroad tracks) and retaining walls; a pedestrian bridge over Santa Ana Boulevard; installation of paving, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, streetlights, landscape and irrigation features, and drainage facilities; and the relocation of utilities. Two pedestrian bridges are proposed: one on each side of the proposed railroad bridge. The proposed pedestrian bridges would allow connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC. The exact bridge type and configuration will be determined during the final design phase of the project.

During construction the project proposes to construct a temporary two track shoofly railroad alignment for the purpose of constructing the underpass structure while maintaining railroad service, which is to be constructed beginning just south of the existing Metrolink crossing of I-5 and terminating south of SARTC near 4th Street. This shoofly alignment would be located east of the existing railroad alignment. The project also proposes to construct a four-lane detour road south of Santa Ana Boulevard, which would be used by traffic during the construction of the underpass bridge and its approaches. The project also proposes to use Fruit Street as a detour EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2720 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-5
route during the final phase of construction. New right-of-way, including both permanent acquisition and temporary easements, would be required for the construction of the shoofly and detour road.

Construction staging areas for the proposed project would potentially be located on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 398-207-01 (County owned) and 398-093-13 (private business), which are proposed for full acquisitions. The disposal site for the proposed project, if needed, would be selected by the contractor. Any environmental clearances related to the disposal site would be obtained by the contractor prior to construction.

The proposed project is included in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2013 costconstrained Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) (federal approval date of December 14, 2012) as project ID ORA082610. The project as proposed is consistent with the 2013 FTIP description.

Specifically, it meets the following goals and policies: Circulation Element Goal 1, “Provide and maintain a comprehensive circulation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City, and enhances its economic viability.” This is achieved by meeting Policy 1.10, which is to “Provide barrier-free accessibility throughout the circulation system.” Circulation Element Goal 2, “Provide design and construction that facilitates safe utilization of the City’s transportation system.” This is achieved by meeting Policy 2.7, which is to “Continue design practices which facilitate the safe use of circulation systems.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2721 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-6
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2722 5/5/2026
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦5
§¨¦405
UV55
UV91
UV261
UV73
UV57
UV72
UV22
UV133
UV90
UV133
UV90
UV261
UV UV72 91
UV261
UV57
UV22
Anaheim
Santa Ana
Irvine
Orange
Costa Mesa
Garden Grove
Fullerton
Tustin
Fountain Valley
Newport Beach
Westminster
Tustin Foothills
Placentia
Villa Park Villa Park
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Imperial San Diego
Orange
Los Angeles
Kern
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11) Project Site
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2723 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-8
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2724 5/5/2026
Project Location
French
Park
Logan
Park
Mabury
Park
Prentice
Park
P E Railroad
BNSF RR and Amtrak
15Th
Mcclay
Standard
Spurgeon
Elk
Oakmont
Santiago
Main
Parrie
Hardly
Grace
Breeden
Trinidad
Kilson
Obarr
8Th
6Th
Brown
Dresser
Myrtle
Mortimer
Martha
Greenwood
5Th
Penn
Eastside
Porter
11Th
Stafford
12Th
Terminal
Eastwood
Patricia
2Nd
Camile
Court
Hathaway
Dorman
9Th
10Th
Valencia
Palm
Vance
Minnie
18Th
Warren
Cedar
Concord
Custer
Wellington
Fuller
Fruit
Fairmont
19Th
Bush
20Th
21St
Catalina
Logan
16Th
3Rd
Santa Fe
Minter
Garfield Hickory
Civic Center
Bishop
Pine
Lacy
Washington
Chestnut
Walnut
Wright
French
Linwood
Poinsettia
Lyon
Orange
Cypress
Ha
Oak
lladay
14Th
Maple
4Th
Lincoln
Mabury
Santa Ana
17Th
Grand
Mortimer
5Th
4Th
Main
1St
§¨¦5
Figure 2
Project Location Map
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig02_Project_Location.mxd SM, NB (09-19-11)) ±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
Project Vicnity Map
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2725 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-10
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2726 5/5/2026

SANTIAGO ST

POINSETTIA ST

METROLINK

SANTA ANA

STATION

STAFFORD ST

CUSTER ST

LOGAN ST

WASHINGTON AVE

LINCOLN AVE

FULLER ST

TERMINAL ST
E 4TH STBREEDEN
I-5 NB
I-5 SB
I-5 SB OFF
I-5 SB ON

PHOENIX HOUSE

REHAB CENTER

FRUIT ST

EASTWOOD AVE

SANTA ANA
BLVD

GRAND AVE
APN
398-093-01 APN 398-194-21
APN
398-194-22
APN
398-194-20
APN
398-194-19
APN
398-194-18
APN
398-092-09
APN
398-092-08
APN
398-092-10
APN
398-092-11
APN
398-092-14
APN
398-092-13
APN
398-092-02
APN
398-093-08
APN
398-093-07
APN
398-093-05
398-093-06
APN
398-093-04
APN
398-194-15
APN
398-194-16
APN
398-194-17
APN
398-194-23
APN
398-194-14
APN
398-093-13
398-205
-07
APN
398-202-01
APN
398-201-11
APN
398-352-10
APN
398-204-04
APN
398-352-07
APN
398-207-01
APN
398-361-07
APN
398-208-01
APN
398-101-16
APN
398-101-15
APN
398-101-14 APN
398-101-13
APN
398-101-02
APN
398-361-01
APN
398-352-06
APN
398-342-12
APN
398-381-01
APN
398-381-04
APN
398-381-02
05 03
04 02
APN
398-381-12
APN
398-461-07
APN
398-461-19
APN
398-461-18
APN
398-361-03
APN
398-361-12
APN
398-093-03
APN
398-202-07
APN
398-202-08
APN
398-202-09
APN
398-202
-10
APN
398-205-01
APN
398-205-02
APN
398-205-03
APN
398-205-04
APN
398-205
-05
APN
398-205-09
APN
398-205-08
APN
398-381-03
APN
398-381-=13
APN
398-362
-01
APN
398-092-15
APN
398-092-12
APN
398-093-02
APN
398-342-18
Figure 3
Proposed Project Area
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI World Imagery
(2010)
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig03_Project_Area.mxd Date: 2/24/2014 26629 Legend
Parcels
Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Full Aquisition
Proposed Partial Aquisition
Temporary Construction Easement
Detour Road
Proposed Temporary Shoofly
Proposed Improvements
District: 12
County: Orange
Route Santa Ana Blvd
Federal Project No: STPL 5063 (136)
0 100 200 50
Feet
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2727 5/5/2026
Chapter 1. Introduction
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
1-12
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2728 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-1
Chapter 2 Land Use

2.1 Existing and Future Land Use
The Land Use study area is defined to include the community and land uses within approximately 0.5-mile radius of the project. The Land Use study area is intended to encompass an area where the potential impacts on the community, if any, from construction and operation of the proposed project would be reasonably foreseeable (see Figure 4, Resource Study Area and Land Use Map). For the purposes of this document, the ½-mile resource study area has been applied to the following discussions: land use and planning, economic conditions, and community services and facilities. References to “study area” in the corresponding discussions should be considered as such. Discussion pertaining to population and housing uses a different study area, hereafter referred to as the “population and housing study area.” The population and housing study area is defined as the 2000 U.S. Census Block Groups which encompass the project site, Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1, 2, and 4 (located along the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard) and Census Tract 744.06, Block Groups 1, 2 and 3 (located along the south side of Santa Ana Boulevard) (refer to Figure 5, Census Tract Map).

2.1.1 Affected Environment

2.1.1.1 Existing Land Uses
The proposed project is located within the City of Santa Ana, in northern Orange County, and is approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the Santa Ana Civic Center. The project area is located approximately 32 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The nearest municipalities include the City of Tustin, approximately one mile to the east, City of Orange approximately 1.5 miles to the north, and City of Garden Grove, approximately two miles to the northwest. The City of Santa Ana serves as the governmental center for the County, is home to federal government offices, and is also a major residential, commercial, and industrial center within the region.

The City is highly urbanized and characterized by extensive residential, commercial, and industrial development. As is the case in the project area, residential districts occur in close proximity to industrial and commercial development, as well as the railroad corridors and freeways that serve the region. These transportation corridors include the Metrolink rail line, which bisects the project area; I-5, which is located north and east of the project area; and State Routes 22 and 55 (SR-22 and SR-55), located two miles to the north and southeast, respectively.

Within the project area, Santa Ana Boulevard consists of a north/south six-lane roadway (three lanes in each direction) that crosses the existing OCTA railroad tracks at-grade. The land use study area consists of the following land uses (refer to Figure 4, Land Use Study Area and Existing Land Use Map). The land uses shown on Figure 4 are based on the Southern California Association of Governments land use data:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2729 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-2
• Northwest quadrant: The area located north of Santa Ana Boulevard, west of the existing railroad tracks consists of single family residential and industrial/manufacturing uses in the Logan neighborhood. Commercial/residential development (Santiago Lofts) are located west of the project site.
• Northeast quadrant: The area located north of Santa Ana Boulevard and east of the existing railroad tracks consists of industrial and manufacturing uses, vacant land, highway (I-5), and highway right-of-way.
• Southeast quadrant: The area south of Santa Ana Boulevard and east of the existing railroad tracks includes industrial uses including the County facility and maintenance yard; warehouses and manufacturing facilities, institutional (Phoenix House), and single family residential (south of Fruit Street).
• Southwest quadrant: The area south of Santa Ana Boulevard and west of the existing railroad tracks includes SARTC, SARTC parking lots, commercial/residential development (Santiago Lofts) centered at the southwest corner of Santiago Street and Santa Ana Boulevard; and commercial/office (Waterline Technologies Inc. and Austin Hardwoods & Hardware).

Development Trends
The project site is within the City of Santa Ana located in northern Orange County. Orange County comprises 34 cities and has a population of 2.94 million residents. According to the County’s General Plan, most of the future growth in the County is projected to occur in the unincorporated territories found in southern and eastern Orange County, as well as large portions of undeveloped territory south of Ortega Highway (County of Orange 2011).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2730 5/5/2026
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
§¨¦5
17th Street
1st Street
Grand Ave
Santa Ana Blvd
07 06
05 04
04 03
02 01
Figure 4
Resource Study Area: Existing and Future Land Uses
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
District: 12
County: Orange
Route: Santa Ana Boulevard
Federal Project No.: STPL 5063(136)
Legend
Project Limits
Project Study Area
(0.5 mile buffer)
Land Use
Commercial
Public Facilities
Freeways and Major Roads
Residential
Industrial
Vacant
Communication Facilities
Improved Flood Waterways and Structures
Maintenance Yards
Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Mixed Urban
Parking Facilities
Railroads/ Transit Station
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig04_Resource_Study_Area_LandUse.mxd 2/25/2014 26629 ±
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
01 - Transit Zoning Code
02 - Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center Expansion 03 - Santa Ana - Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project
04 - City of Santa Ana Citywide Residential Street Repair Program 05 - City of Santa Ana Circulation Element
06 - City of Santa Ana Housing Element Update
07 - Depot at Santiago
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2731 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-4
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2732 5/5/2026
Lacy Neighborhood
Logan Neighborhood
Santa Ana Blvd
1st Street
Grand Ave
§¨¦5
3 1
1 2
3 2
074405
074406
Figure 5
Census Block and Tract Information
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
±
Source: ESRI (2010)
0 125 250 500
Feet
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Santa_Ana\00000_00\mapdoc\Figxx_census_trcts_blk.mxd SM (06-09-11) Legend
Construction Boundary
Tract 074405
Block Group 1
Block Group 2
Block Group 3
Tract 074406
Block Group 1
Block Group 2
Block Group 3
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2733 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-6
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2734 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-7
In 2020, the unincorporated area is projected to rank second in population, fourth in housing and fourth in employment (County of Orange 2011). The overall downward trend in growth rates for all other areas within the County can be explained by diminishing undeveloped lands.

According to the County’s General Plan, approximately 136,018 dwelling units would be added to the County’s 2000 housing stock by the year 2025 (County of Orange 2011). Of these, approximately 45 percent would be located in unincorporated areas (County of Orange 2011).

While a substantial level of new housing would be constructed in the south and eastern portions of the County, there would be continued infill and redevelopment in the northern and central regions. Substantial commercial and industrial development is predicted to occur along major transportation arteries. The County’s General Plan also states that a noticeable and continuing trend toward higher density housing has been observed, and is expected to continue into the future.

The City is the County Seat and second largest city in the County, and eleventh largest in California (California State Department of Finance, Cities Ranked, Total Population 01/01/2011). The City’s central location and its status as a county governmental and employment center are likely to result in continued development pressure. The City contains a variety of land uses, reflecting its maturity as a commercial, employment, and administrative center for the County. Since the City has very limited vacant land, most new development consists primarily of infill development and redevelopment. Because of the City’s age, some properties are undergoing development for the second or third time.

Since 1990, the development of new housing in the City has not kept pace with its population growth which has led to a substantial increase in the average household size. There has been little growth in housing over the last several years; however, additional infill housing is anticipated through 2015. With even modest population growth at the current rate of housing production, the City is likely to continue to experience a rise in average household size.

Future land uses in the project area are guided by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. These land use guidance documents orient future land uses in terms of types of use, placement, and density. They are subject to limitations such as jurisdictional boundaries, topographical and environmental conditions, and overriding state or federal regulations. In assessing the effects of a project, information obtained from land use guidance documents and approved local development projects contribute substantially to the development of an accurate characterization of future project area conditions.

A review of the City’s Major Development Project list was conducted in order to determine future development projects within the study area. Approved development projects located within the study area are considered in this assessment of the project’s effect on land use and are shown in Table 1, Approved Local Development Projects. As shown in Table 1, many of the planned projects in the study area include transit, redevelopment, rehabilitation, or infill projects (refer to Figure 4).

The SARTC Expansion consists of the construction of a new train station on the east side of the railroad tracks on the County maintenance facilities yard property; adaptive re-use of the existing train station; new onsite transit-oriented mixed use development with the objectives of accommodating increased Metrolink train service and facilitating intermodal transfers. This EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2735 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-8
project incorporates both the Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway projects. The timeframe for this project is uncertain; it is tentatively scheduled for 2017 or later; however, public outreach meetings are in the process of being held with the local community to introduce the project and solicit feedback.

The City, in partnership with the City of Garden Grove, is studying a fixed-guideway system that would travel between SARTC and Bristol Street in Santa Ana, with potential future extensions to Harbor Boulevard in Garden Grove (City of Santa Ana 2010). The timeframe for this project is uncertain; it is tentatively scheduled to begin operations in 2017 or later. This project incorporates the Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation project into the project design.

The recently adopted Transit Zoning Code, would provide new zoning that would integrate new infill development into existing neighborhoods, would allow for the reuse of existing structures, and would provide a transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure in the City (City of Santa Ana 2010). This new zoning district comprises over 100 blocks and 450 acres from the area west of I-5, north of 1st Street, between Grand Avenue and Flower Street, and south of Civic Center Drive. The new zoning would preserve and reinforce the historic character and pedestrian nature of the City while encouraging the development of alternative modes of transportation, including rail (City of Santa Ana 2010). The Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation project is within the Transit Zoning Code district.

Table 1. Approved Local Development Projects within the Study Area* ID#* Name and Location Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status 1 Transit Zoning Code -
over 100 blocks and
450 acres located in
the area west of I-5,
north of First Street,
and
between Grand Avenue
and Flower Street and
south of Civic Center
Drive
Santa Ana The primary objective of this project is
to provide new zoning for the
integration of new infill development into
existing neighborhoods; to allow for
reuse of existing structures; and to
provide a transit-supportive, pedestrianoriented development framework to support the addition of new transit
infrastructure. Project would result in
the development of approximately
4,075 net residential units, 387,000 net
square feet of retail development, and
an additional 15.5 acres of open space.

EIR approved June
2010
2 Santa Ana Regional
Transportation Center
Expansion
1000 Block of E. Santa
Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana Construction of a new train station on
the east side of the railroad tracks on
County facilities yard property; adaptive
re-use of existing train station; new
onsite transit-oriented mixed use
development with the objectives of
accommodating increased Metrolink
train service, facilitating intermodal
transfers in manner appropriate to the
neighborhood setting.

Timeframe
Uncertain.

Tentatively 2017 or
later
3 Santa Ana-Garden
Grove Fixed Guideway
Project
Santa Ana,
Garden
Grove
Would connect SARTC with a new
transportation center that would be built
in Garden Grove. Project calls for
embedding the tracks in the pavement,
and would include stations at onequarter and half-mile intervals.

Timeframe
Uncertain.

Tentatively 2017 or
later
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2736 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-9
ID#* Name and Location Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status 4 Citywide Residential
Street Repair Program
Multiple Locations
throughout Santa Ana,
including Mabury St.

Santa Ana Five-year program to rehabilitate
roadway pavement, including repair or
full replacement of concrete curb and
sidewalk of up to 100 miles of streets.

No aesthetic enhancements (i.e.,
landscaping, street furniture) are
proposed as part of the project.

Project completed
5 City’s Circulation
Element – Citywide
Santa Ana City is conducting public workshops to
update the Circulation Element and
develop a "Complete Streets" policy.

Conducting public
workshops
6 City’s Housing Element
– Citywide
Santa Ana City is updating the Housing Element
and refining the City’s housing policy
Conducting public
hearings
7 Depot at Santiago
923 North Santiago
Street
Santa Ana New mixed use community to be
located directly across from SARTC.

The proposed development involves the
construction of 70 apartment units over
approximately 9,000 square feet of
commercial and retail space
Community
Meetings being held
Source: City of Santa Ana Planning Major Planning Projects Division website and City of Santa Ana Major Development Activity Report (updated January 2014) (City of Santa Ana 2014a and 2014b). NA: Not Available. *Refer to Figure 4 for project site location.

2.1.2 Environmental Consequences

2.1.2.1 Short-Term (Construction)
Construction of the proposed project could create some temporary and intermittent inconvenience for local residences, businesses, and the community due to increased construction equipment and workers in the study area, temporary traffic detours, partial lane closures, parking restrictions, and increased noise and fugitive dust. Best management practices for traffic, noise abatement, and air quality will be implemented during project construction to minimize these impacts.

During construction, temporary construction easements (TCEs) would be required for the proposed project. A description of the affected properties is provided in Table 3. The affected properties are also shown on Figure 3. New right-of-way, including both permanent acquisition and TCEs, would be required for the construction of the temporary two-track shoofly railroad alignment. A TCE would also be needed on APNs 398-092-12, 398-092-13, 398-092-14, and 398-092-15 in order to construct a temporary detour road that would provide access from Santa Ana Boulevard to Washington Street and Fuller Street. No relocations, impacts on the community, or impacts on existing or planned land uses would be anticipated, since these lots are currently undeveloped, belong to the State of California, County of Orange, and City of Santa Ana, and are not used by the neighboring community.

The four-lane detour road south of Santa Ana Boulevard, which would be used by vehicular traffic during the construction of the underpass bridge and its approaches, would be constructed on the SARTC parking lot; however, a TCE would not be needed since the land is owned by the City of Santa Ana. This would result in the loss of some parking at SARTC; however, as EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2737 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-10
discussed in Section 4.2, there is additional replacement parking provided in the SARTC parking structure. Therefore, no impacts on the community from the loss of parking are anticipated.

A TCE on the grounds of the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center (APN 398-101-15) and the County’s Public Works Construction and Facilities Operations Yard (APN 398-101-16) would be required in order to accommodate the proposed detour road. This TCE would affect a small portion of the existing baseball diamond at the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center (APN 398- 101-15), which is actually encroaching within the existing Santa Ana Boulevard right-of-way, but there appears to be sufficient space to reconfigure the field once construction is complete.

No impacts on the community are anticipated as a result of this TCE, as this business would continue to be open and operating throughout construction since access to the facility would not be affected. The community would be able to access the Rehabilitation Center from neighboring streets, since no road closures or detours would occur that would affect access to the business.

The TCE at the County’s Public Works Construction and Facilities Operations Yard (APN 398- 101-16) would have no impact on the neighboring community, since this facility is not a business that is open to the public. The TCE would result in the loss of some parking spaces for County employees who work at this facility but is not expected to affect operations of the facility, since additional parking for employees is available at the adjacent County-owned parcels and on nearby local streets.

No impacts on the community are anticipated as a result of the TCE at Freeway Truck Auto Wrecking, which currently serves as an auto salvage yard (APN 398-361-12). As detailed in Table 2, the TCE would affect a small portion of the salvage yard that is used for racking and auto parts storage, which parallels the existing railroad tracks. The business would be able to use adjacent space for racking and storage during the construction period. It is anticipated that the business would remain open during this period. The community would be able to access the business from neighboring streets, since no road closures or detours would occur that would affect access to the business.

2.1.2.2 Long-Term (Operation)
Up to eight nonresidential properties (composed of 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project, and would need to be fully acquired and an additional two nonresidential properties would be affected by partial acquisitions (APN 398-101-15 and 398-101-16) and would require some property reconfiguration but would not result in displacement (refer to Tables 2 and 3).

These properties currently house private businesses and government facilities according to a January 2012 field survey and a property records search. All of the properties that would be acquired are located east of the existing railroad right-of-way and Lincoln Avenue.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2738 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-11
Table 2. Temporary Construction Easements Not Requiring Relocation APN
TCE Area
(Square Feet)
Partial Acquisition Area
(square feet) Current Property Use
398-092-12 873 -- Parcel belongs to State of California and is currently undeveloped.
398-092-13 6,953 -- Parcel belongs to County of Orange and is currently undeveloped.
398-092-14 12,488 -- Parcel belongs to Community Redevelopment Agency City of Santa Ana and is currently
undeveloped.
398-092-15 6,664 Parcel belongs to State of California and is currently undeveloped.
398-093-01 655 -- The parcel is developed and occupied by Santa Ana Industrial Company, LLC (video production
and plastic materials and resins production).

TCE would be required on a small sliver of the
existing parking lot. It is not anticipated that the
business would be affected during construction
and would be expected to remain open during
this period since only a small sliver of the parking
lot would be temporarily occupied during
construction and there is ample parking on Fuller
Street, Washington, and Lincoln Avenue.
398-101-15 2,604 (partial
take and TCE)
1,169 Institutional (Phoenix House). TCE would affect
lawn area that is encroaching within the Santa
Ana Boulevard right-of-way. The TCE is needed
for reconstruction of Santa Ana Boulevard and is
not expected to affect operation of the
rehabilitation center or sports field. The
Rehabilitation Center would remain open during
this period.
398-101-16 11,500
(partial take
and TCE)
14,453 Parcel is owned by County of Orange and is
location of the County’s Public Works
Construction and Facilities Operations Yard The
TCE would result in the loss of some parking
spaces but is not expected to affect operations of
facility since additional parking is available at
adjacent County parcels and on nearby local
streets.
398-361-07 38,074 -- County of Orange – Fruit Street Construction and Facilities Operations Yard. TCE would affect a
small portion of the yard that parallels the existing
railroad tracks where multiple metal
buildings/garages are located. Buildings 3, 4, 5,
& 6 would be affected. Building 5 has a paint
booth to the east side of the property. Relocation
of tires, racking, shelving, equipment, furniture,
and miscellaneous property would be required.

Larger equipment in welding shop would also
need to be relocated. The business may be able
to use adjacent space for storage during
construction period.
398-361-12 14,828 -- Freeway Truck Auto Wrecking. Appears to be an auto salvage yard. TCE would affect a small
portion of the salvage yard that is used for
racking and auto parts storage, which parallels
the existing railroad tracks. The business may be
able to use adjacent space for racking and
storage during the construction period. It is
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2739 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-12
APN
TCE Area
(Square Feet)
Partial Acquisition Area
(square feet) Current Property Use
anticipated that the business would remain open
during this period.

Source: AECOM Right of Way Acquisition Data Updated February 2014.

Table 3. Description of Full and Partial Acquisitions
APN Current Property Use Full/Partial
Acquisition
398-093-03 Industrial (automotive parts), appears vacant Full 398-093-04
398-093-05
Textile manufacturing (The Suit Company—private
services)
Full
398-093-06 Industrial (private business—Macera Crematory) Full 398-093-07 Industrial. Appears to be vacant, although may be occupied by Gulledge Machine Works
Full
398-093-13
398-093-08
Industrial (office supply distribution and vacant) Full 398-101-15 Institutional (Phoenix House of California, Inc.) Partial (1,169 sq. ft.) 398-101-16 Government (County field office space) Partial (14,453 sq. ft.) 398-207-01 Government (vehicle storage and gas station) Full 398-208-01 Government (vehicle storage) Full
931-104-67
931-104-68 (formerly 398-342-
18)
Industrial (geotechnical engineering) Full
Source: AECOM Right-of-Way Acquisition Data Updated February 2014.

The current state of the commercial and industrial property market suggests that there are sufficient vacancies within the City to absorb the displaced businesses that would occur as a result of the project, although the search area may need to be expanded for a small number of larger properties. Adequate and comparable relocation resources have been identified and deemed to be ample for current relocation purposes. Given the relatively modest number of displacements, no substantial change in either the pattern or rate of land use and development is expected in the study area. Refer to Section 3.4.2, Relocation for additional information related to relocation impacts.

The purpose of the proposed project is to eliminate the at-grade crossing of Santa Ana Boulevard and the OCTA Metrolink tracks by creating a grade separation, including depressing the profile of Santa Ana Boulevard under the adjacent Metrolink tracks to: enhance traffic operations; improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety; improve emergency response times; and reduce existing traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard. Implementation of the project would not diminish access to or the ability to use project-adjacent vacant land and open spaces, nor would it physically divide an established community. The proposed project would convert parcels used for commercial and government uses to transportation uses; however, this would not substantially affect the land use patterns within the City. The proposed improvements would be compatible with existing and proposed land use patterns, which include a mix of transit, residential, manufacturing, and industrial development. This project would not conflict with EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2740 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-13
existing land uses and would be considered consistent with the existing as well as future land uses in the study area.

The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, directly or indirectly. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth would be consistent with those contemplated in existing plans for the area. Furthermore, no new or expanded utilities, housing, or other similar permanent physical changes to the environment would be necessary as an indirect consequence of the proposed project. The proposed project is not anticipated to change accessibility to employment, shopping, or other destinations in the area since the area is currently served by a number of nearby existing and planned roads.

2.1.2.3 Cumulative
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effects assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individually minor, but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts on resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and transit development.

The cumulative impact analyses included in this section considered projects that are currently proposed, approved, or under construction within the City of Santa Ana within or adjacent to the study area. A list of projects included in the analysis is presented in Table 1 and their location is shown on Figure 4.

The proposed project would have little to no effect on existing land use or planned development.

The project is consistent with the existing and planned development for the study area, and is identified in many of the planned projects (i.e., SARTC Expansion and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project). The proposed project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on this resource area; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative impact related to land use.

2.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize short-term impacts on the community during the construction period, the proposed project would implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) (Measure TRF-1; refer to Section 4.3) to provide recommendations to minimize traffic impacts of construction activities.

The Air Quality Report also includes standard measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) for dust control during construction, as stipulated by the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rule 403, and the Noise Study Report includes standard avoidance measures, identified as N-1 to N-3, which would be implemented to reduce construction and operation noise.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2741 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-14

2.2 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans

2.2.1 Affected Environment

2.2.1.1 Southern California Association of Governments
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan planning organization for six counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Among SCAG’s activities is the maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvements Plan (RTIP). The proposed project is included in the 2012 RTP and 2011 cost-constrained Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) (federal approval date of December 14, 2010) as project ID ORA082610. The project as proposed is consistent with the description within the 2011 FTIP.

2.2.1.2 City of Santa Ana General Plan
The City’s General Plan was adopted in 1982, and was reformatted in 2010. The General Plan establishes goals, objectives, policies, and programs applicable to land use planning and development in the City and consists of the following elements: Airport Environs (Adopted 12/2008); Circulation (Adopted 01/1998); Conservation (Adopted 09/1982); Economic Development (Adopted 07/1998); Education (Adopted 01/1988); Energy (Adopted 09/1982); Growth Management (Adopted 07/1991); Housing (Adopted 10/2009); Land Use (Adopted 02/1998); Noise (Adopted 09/1982); Open Space, Parks & Recreation (Adopted 09/1982); Public Facilities (Adopted 09/1982); Public Safety (Adopted 09/1982); Scenic Corridors (Adopted 09/1982); Seismic Safety (Adopted 09/1982); and Urban Design (Adopted 07/1998).

The General Plan designates all the properties east of Santiago Street, south of Santa Ana Boulevard, and east of Fuller Street along the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard, as “District Center.” The Land Use Element designates seven District Centers in the City, which are designed to serve as anchors to the City’s commercial corridors and to accommodate major development activity. The project study area falls within the “Transit Village District,” which is envisioned as a vibrant intense urban village with a balance of employment centers, residential and service uses. Pedestrian and transit linkages to SARTC is key in this district.

Properties west of Fuller Street and north of Santa Ana Boulevard are designated for “Urban Neighborhood” (UN) uses. The Urban Neighborhood (UN) land use designation applies to primarily residential areas with pedestrian oriented commercial uses, schools, and small parks.

Street connectivity is desirable, allowing for a high degree of walkability, transit options, and other forms of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle travel.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2742 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-15
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element’s “Master Plan of Street and Highways” classifies Santa Ana Boulevard as a “Primary Arterial” which generally consists of a four-lane, divided roadway with a typical right-of-way width of 100 feet, designed to accommodate between 22,500 and 33,800 vehicle trips daily. Grand Avenue is designated as a “Major Arterial” that generally consists of sixtravel lanes, divided roadway, with a typical right-of-way width of 120 feet, designed to accommodate between 33,900 and 50,600 vehicle trips daily.

The City’s “Bikeway Master Plan” depicts a proposed Class I bike path along Santiago Street and 4th Street just outside of the project’s construction boundary. A Class I bike path provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from the street (City of Santa Ana 1998b). The “Bikeway Master Plan” also identifies the future extension of the existing Class II bikeway along Santa Ana Boulevard from the Civic Center to SARTC. Class II Bikeway, provide for a striped lane for one-way travel within the street right-of-way. Goals and policies in the Circulation Element that are applicable to the proposed project are listed below:
• Goal 1: Provide and maintain a comprehensive circulation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City, and enhances its economic viability.
• Policy 1.1: Coordinate transportation improvements in a manner which minimizes disruptions to the community.
• Policy 1.10: Provide barrier-free accessibility throughout the circulation system. • Policy 1.11: Minimize travel impediments on bicycle and pedestrian paths. • Goal 2: Provide design and construction that facilitate safe utilization of the City’s transportation systems.
• Policy 2.4: Support rail crossings to minimize conflicts with on-street traffic while enhancing passenger safety and comfort.
• Policy 2.7: Continue design practices which facilitate the safe use of circulation systems.

2.2.1.3 City of Santa Ana Zoning Code
Within the study area, properties north of Santa Ana Boulevard are zoned “Urban Neighborhood 1” (UN1) and “Urban Neighborhood 2” (UN2). Properties east of Fuller Street are zoned “Transit Village” (TV). South of Santa Ana Boulevard, the majority of the study area is zoned TV. The SARTC station is zoned “Government Center” (GCD). The properties south of Santa Ana Boulevard, west of Santiago Street are zoned UN and Urban Center (UC).

2.2.1.4 City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code
The project site lies within the newly adopted Transit Zoning Code area, which includes nine zoning districts. The code is intended to provide new standards for compact transit supportive mixed-use/residential development within the City (City of Santa Ana 2010). Under the new zoning code, the project site and adjacent land would be designated as “Transit Village” and EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2743 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-16
“Urban Center.” The area immediately north and south of 6th Street, east of the railroad tracks is zoned as Urban Center. This designation allows for a variety of non-residential uses and a mix of housing types at medium intensities and densities. The industrial areas south of Fruit Street and east of the tracks have an Industrial Overlay Zone (I-OZ) M2.

2.2.1.5 Habitat Conservation Plan
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), or other conservation plans that apply to the project site; therefore, no further analysis is required.

2.2.1.6 Specific Development Proposals
Several development projects are in various stages of planning and construction in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, refer to Table 1 and Figure 4.

2.2.2 Environmental Consequences

2.2.2.1 Short-term (Construction)
Construction activities would result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions to the local community in the proposed project area, primarily related to: construction-related traffic changes from construction trucks and equipment in the area; partial and/or complete street and lane closures on Santa Ana Boulevard; road detours; increased noise and vibration; and fugitive dust.

For a discussion of how these impacts would affect the neighboring community, refer to Section

3.1.2, Environmental Consequences, in Chapter 3, Community Character. The proposed project includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts that would occur during the construction period (refer to Sections 3.1.4 and 3.5.2).

Construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in short-term impacts on adopted state, regional, and local plans. As mentioned previously, the proposed project is consistent with adopted state, regional, and local plans and is also identified in some of the major projects identified in the project study area.

2.2.2.2 Long-term (Operation)
The City’s Circulation Element identifies Santa Ana as a primarily arterial, which is defined as a four- or six-lane divided arterial, which is consistent with the proposed project design. The proposed project would be consistent with Circulation Element Goal 1 and Policy 1.1 because the project would provide a barrier free circulation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods through the City. The proposed project would also be consistent with Policies 1.10 and 1.11 because it would eliminate the current at-grade crossing which would provide barrier-free accessibility across Santa Ana Boulevard and would minimize travel impediments on bicyclists, vehicles, and pedestrians. The proposed grade separation project is also consistent with Policy 2.4 since the project would minimize conflicts with on street-traffic and rail crossings. The proposed project would also be consistent with Circulation Element Goal EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2744 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-17
2 and Policy 2.7 because the design and construction of the project facilitates safe utilization of the City’s transportation system.

The project calls for relocating Santa Ana Boulevard approximately 30 feet south of its existing alignment, to construct a utility corridor on the north side of the roadway, and to maintain the existing lane configuration of three lanes in each direction. In addition to a new public sidewalk, an approximately 42-foot corridor is being reserved along the southerly portion of the alignment for a future bikeway and future Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway expansion. By eliminating the at-grade crossing of Santa Ana Boulevard and the OCTA Metrolink corridor the proposed project would enhance future traffic operations and improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety along Santa Ana Boulevard. Improving pedestrian and bicycle safety is consistent with the vision of the Transit Zoning Code which emphasizes a pedestrian-oriented, transitsupportive environment.

The proposed project would not conflict with any of the planned land uses identified in Table 1.

The project is consistent and identified within some of the major projects identified in the study area (i.e., SARTC Master Plan, Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway). No impacts on these future land uses are anticipated.

The proposed improvements (project number ORA082610) are consistent with the project description in the current 2011 FTIP and are identified in the 2012 RTP.

The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would not conflict with existing land uses and would be considered consistent with the existing as well as future planned land uses in the study area.

2.2.2.3 Cumulative
The proposed project is in compliance with the adopted local and regional plans and policies; therefore, the project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on compliance with applicable plans and policies. Therefore, the potential for the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts related to compliance with applicable plans and policies.

2.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in short- or long-term impacts on adopted state, regional, and local plans. As mentioned previously, the proposed project is consistent with adopted state, regional, and local plans and is also identified in some of the major projects identified in the project study area. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed because no adverse effects under NEPA are anticipated. In order to minimize short-term impacts on the community during the construction period, the proposed project would implement a TMP (Measure TRF-1) to provide recommendations to minimize traffic impacts of construction activities. The Air Quality Report also includes standard EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2745 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-18
measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) for dust control during construction, as stipulated by SCAQMD’s Rule 403, and the Noise Study Report includes standard avoidance measures (N-1 to N-3), which would be implemented to reduce construction and operation noise.

2.3 Farmlands/Timberlands

2.3.1 Affected Environment
Through mapping maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service/California Department of Conservation, it has been determined that the project study area is located in an urbanized area (Santa Ana Boulevard) and does not meet the definition of farmland as defined in 7 CFR 658. The entire project area is defined as “Urban and Built-up Land” (California Department of Conservation 2010). Therefore, the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 do not apply to this project. There are no agricultural preserves or parcels under Williamson Act contract along or adjacent to the project alignment. In addition, the area is designated for nonagricultural uses in local plans. The proposed project would not result in any acquisition or conversion of any farmlands or timberlands.

2.3.2 Environmental Consequences
No adverse effects under NEPA would occur since there are no timberlands, farmlands, agricultural preserves or parcels under Williamson Act contract along or adjacent to the project alignment.

2.3.2.1 Cumulative
The proposed project would have no effect on farmlands or timberlands; therefore, the project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on this resource area.

2.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed because no adverse effects under NEPA are anticipated.

2.4 Parks and Recreation

2.4.1 Affected Environment
The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Agency is responsible for maintaining and programming 74 facilities within its park and recreation network, along with several public EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2746 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-19
school grounds (City of Santa Ana 2010). The City provides a range of recreational opportunities that include parks, sport fields, the Santa Ana Stadium, senior and recreation centers, swimming pools, the Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park, and the trail system. Parks and recreational facilities that are within 0.5 mile of the project site are listed in Table 4, Parks and Recreation Facilities within the Study Area, and shown in Figure 6, Community Facilities.

The City’s “Bikeway Master Plan” depicts a proposed Class I bike path along Santiago Street and 4th Street just outside of the project’s construction boundary. The Circulation Element’s “Bikeway Master Plan” and the OCTA Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan also identify the future extension of the existing Class II bikeway along Santa Ana Boulevard from the Civic Center to SARTC. There are currently no designated bikeways along Santa Ana Boulevard or adjacent streets.

Table 4. Parks and Recreation Facilities within 0.5 Mile of the Study Area Facilities Location
Distance from
Project (miles)
Map
ID
City Parks and Address
Chepa’s Park—0.5-acre park with basketball court,
playground, picnic area, handball courts, and restrooms. 1009 N. Custer Street 0.08 1
Saddleback View Park—1-acre park with playground,
picnic area and passive park
631 Patricia Lane Street 0.30 2
French Park—0.5-acre park with picnic area. 901 N. French Street 0.32 3 Recreational Facilities
Logan Recreation Center—community building,
playground, handball courts, all-purpose court, and picnic area located in Chepa’s Park
1009 N. Custer 0.08 4
Source: City of Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency 2014.

2.4.2 Environmental Consequences

2.4.2.1 Short-term (Construction)
There are no parks, recreational facilities, or bicycle trails within the limits of disturbance or construction boundary of the project. In addition, no improvements or construction activities would encroach into, or use any portion of the parks identified within or adjacent to the project study area. The proposed project would not affect access to parks or recreational facilities found near the study area, since there are enough alternative pedestrian walkways and roadways adjacent to the study area that would continue to provide access to these facilities (refer to Chapter 4.1, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities). A detour road would be provided along Santa Ana Boulevard during the construction period allowing for travel along this important east/west roadway. No impacts on bicycle facilities are anticipated from the detour on Santa Ana Boulevard or closure of Logan Street, since there are currently no bike lanes on this street. Project construction activities would not affect the existing bike lanes on Santiago Street or 4th Street.

Construction of the proposed project would not induce population growth in the area beyond that which has been previously planned for, nor would it necessitate the need for new or physically EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2747 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-20
altered park; therefore, no adverse effects to any parks, recreational facilities, or bicycle trails would occur as a result of the project.

2.4.2.2 Long-term (Operation)
The project would not use a public park or recreation facility protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. The project would result in a beneficial operational impact on bicyclist and pedestrian riders, as the proposed project would provide for a new public sidewalk, an approximately 42-foot corridor along the southerly portion of the alignment for a future bikeway, and the transit right-of-way proposed under the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project. The proposed project would also include two pedestrian bridges over Santa Ana Boulevard. The proposed project would not affect the future development of a bikeway but rather is designed to accommodate the future use. Therefore, no adverse impacts on future and planned recreational facilities would occur.

2.4.2.3 Cumulative
The proposed project would have no effect on parks, recreational facilities, or trails; therefore, the project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on this resource area.

2.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed because no short- or longterm adverse effects to parks or recreation facilities are anticipated. As previously mentioned, implementation of a construction-period TMP (Measure TRF-1), which is a standard measure would minimize traffic-related impacts during construction. The TMP would include requirements to coordinate with the City and local community to ensure that information related to any lane closures or detours is provided in a timely and ongoing basis.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2748 5/5/2026
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
17th St
1st St
4th St
Santa Ana Blvd
Grand Ave
Main St
Tustin Ave
§¨¦5
Washington Ave
3rd St
Lincoln Ave
Chestnut Ave
Civic Center
Santiago St
French St
12 11
04 03
02 30
29 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
16 09
07 18
15 17
26 27
28 31
10 08
14 13
05 06
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\AECOM\00452_11\mapdoc\Fig06_Community_Facilities.mxd 11/29/2012 26629 Figure 6
Community Facilities
Santa Ana Boulevard
Grade Separation Project
Legend
Project Limits
Project Study Area
(0.5 mile buffer)

01. Chepa's Park

02. Saddleback View Park

03. French Park

04. Logan Recreation Center

05. James A. Garfield Elementary School

06. Wallace R. Davis Elementary School

07. Albor Charter School

08. Frederick Remington Elementary School

09. St. Joseph Private School

10. Raymond A. Villa Fundamental Intermediate School

11. Sierra Middle School

12. Century High School

13. Roosevelt Elementary School

14. Adeline C. Walker Elementary School

15. French Park Care Center (nursing home)

16. Phoenix House of Orange County

17. Santa Ana Outpatient Surgery Center

18. Planned Parenthood

19. Iglesia Vida Abundante

20. Lady of Guadalupe Church

21. Libreria Cristiana Dios-Pactos

22. Church of the Living Lord

23. Iglesia La Luz del Mundo

24. St. Joseph Church

25. Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center

26. Fire Station #2

27. Fire Station #5

28. Fire Station #1

29. SAPD Main Headquarters

30. Downtown Sub-Station

31. Western Medical Center
Source: ESRI Streetmap USA (2008) 0 350 700 1,400 ± Feet EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2749 5/5/2026
Chapter 2. Land Use
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
2-22
This page left intentionally blank
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2750 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
February 2014
3-1
Chapter 3 Community Character

3.1 Population and Housing
The population and housing study area has been defined to include the 2010 U.S. Census of Population and Housing (2010 U.S. Census) census tracts located adjacent to the project site and is intended to encompass an area where the potential population and housing impacts, if any, of construction and operation of the proposed project would be reasonably foreseeable (see Figure 5, Census Tract Map). The population and housing study area is defined as the 2010 U.S.

Census block groups which encompass the project site, Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1, 2, and 3(located along the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard) and Census Tract 744.06, Block Groups 1, 2 and 3 (located along the south side of Santa Ana Boulevard). In addition to the demographic data provided for the population and housing study area, demographic data for the County of Orange and the City of Santa Ana is also provided for comparison.

3.1.1 Affected Environment

3.1.1.1 Regional Population Characteristics
The total population in the County, as reported in the 2010 U.S. Census, was 3,010,232 persons (see Table 5). Of the total population, White was the largest group at 60.8 percent and “Asian” composed the next largest group at 17.9 percent. The remaining 21.3 percent (in order of descending proportions) were “other race,” “two or more races,” Black or African American, Native American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Of these racial groups, 33.7 percent identified themselves as part of the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (see Table 6). The percentage of minority populations in the City is 54.1 percent, which is higher than the County percentage of

39.2 percent (see Table 6).

The City had 324,528 persons in 2010, with the largest racial group being of White origin, at

45.9 percent (see Table 5). Persons of some “other race” composed the next largest group at

37.2 percent. The remaining 16.9 percent (in order of descending proportions) were Asian, “two or more races,” Black or African American, Native American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Approximately 78.2 percent of the total population within the City identified themselves as part of the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (see Table 6), which is higher than the County (33.7 percent).

As shown in Table 7, of those residing within the County, 24.5 percent of the population was under 18 years of age in 2010, while 11.6 percent was over 65 years of age. The City had 30.7 percent persons under 18 years of age and 6.8 percent people over 65 years of age.

3.1.1.2 Local Area Characteristics
The California Department of Finance (DOF) population data estimates that the City had 325,228 residents on January 1, 2011, and that the population had increased by 700 residents (0.2 EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2751 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-2
percent) from 2010. The DOF’s data also shows that the City has been experiencing a population decline between 2000 and 2010. On average, the City experienced a loss of approximately 1,345 residents per year between 2000 and 2010. The 2011 data shows the first population increase since 2000. Table 8 provides the 1990, 2000, and 2010 census counts and the most recent 2011 DOF population estimate for the City of Santa Ana.

In addition to the regional demographics presented above, Tables 3 through 7 summarize demographic characteristics specific to the study area. The total population of the six census block groups composing the population and housing study area was 9,617 persons in 2010, with the largest racial group being of White origin, at 51.4 percent (see Table 5). Persons of some “other race” composed the next largest group at 39.3 percent. The remaining 9.3 percent (in order of descending proportions) were of “two or more races,” Asian, Black or African American, Native American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Of these racial groups, 89.4 percent identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino (Table 6), which is higher than the County percentage of 33.7 percent and City percentage of 78.2 percent.

The percentage of minority populations in the population and housing study area of 48.6 percent is larger than the County percentage of 39.2 percent but smaller than the City’s percentage of

54.1 percent. In 2010, the population and housing study area population under 18 years of age was 33.7 percent; while 12 percent was over 65 years of age (Table 7).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2752 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-3
Table 5. Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Race (2010) Race
Total PopulationWhite% Black or African American% American Indian and Alaska Native% Asian% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders% Some Other Race Alone% Two or More Races% Orange County 3,010,232 1,830,758 60.8% 50,744 1.7% 18,132 0.6% 537,804 17.9% 9,354 0.3% 435,641 14.5% 72,117 2.4% City of Sana Ana 324,528 148,838 45.9% 4,856 1.5% 3,260 1.0% 34,138 10.5% 976 0.3% 120,789 37.2% 2,147 0.6% Census Tract 744.05 5,820 3,049 52.4% 95 1.6% 57 1.0% 132 2.3% 6 0.1% 2,236 38.4% 22 0.4% Census Tract 744.06 3,797 1,913 50.4% 76 2.0% 38 1.0% 72 1.9% 8 0.2% 1,526 40.2% 164 4.3% Study Area 9,617 4,962 51.4% 171 1.8% 95 1.0% 204 2.1% 14 0.2% 3,762 39.3% 186 2.4% Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 1
1,882 915 48.6% 39 2.1% 5 0.3% 27 1.4% 0 0.0% 803 42.7% 6 0.3 Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 2
2,730 1,668 61.1% 42 1.5% 32 1.2% 88 3.2% 1 0.0% 801 29.3% 14 0.5% Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 3
1,208 466 38.6% 14 1.2% 20 1.7% 17 1.4% 5 0.4% 632 52.3% 54 4.5% Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 1
1,002 540 53.9% 23 2.3% 5 0.5% 14 1.4% 2 0.2% 372 37.1% 46 4.6% Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 2
1,055 532 50.4% 9 0.9% 9 0.9% 21 2.0% 4 0.4% 438 41.5% 42 4.0% Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 3
1,740 841 48.3% 44 2.5% 24 1.4% 37 2.1% 2 0.1% 716 41.1% 76 4.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010c. Race Alone or in Combination, Summary File 1 (2010); Compiled by ICF (2012).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2753 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-4
Table 6. Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Ethnicity (2010)

Ethnicity
Total
Population
Hispanic or
Latino % Non-Hispanic
or Latino %
Orange County 3,010,232 1,012,973 33.7% 1,997,259 66.3% City of Santa Ana 324,528 253,928 78.2% 70,600 21.8%
Census Tract 744.05 5,820 5,289 90.9% 531 9.1%
Census Tract 744.06 3,797 3,335 87.8% 462 12.2%
Study Area 9,617 8,624 89.4% 993 10.7%
Census Tract 744.05 Block
Group 1
1,882 1,811 96.2% 71 3.7%
Census Tract 744.05 Block
Group 2
2,730 2,334 85.4% 396 14.5%
Census Tract 744.05 Block
Group 3
1,208 1,144 94.7% 64 5.2%
Census Tract 744.06 Block
Group 1
1,002 872 87.0% 130 13.0%
Census Tract 744.06 Block
Group 2
1,055 956 90.6% 99 9.4%
Census Tract 744.06 Block
Group 3
1,740 1,507 86.6% 233 13.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010d. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. Compiled by ICF 2012
Table 7. Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Age (2010) Area
Total
Population
Age
Under 18 % 65 and Over %
Orange County 3,010,232 736,659 24.5% 349,677 11.6%
City of Santa Ana 324,528 99,678 30.7% 21,911 6.8%
Census Tract 744.05 5,820 2,052 35.3% 217 3.7%
Census Tract 744.06 3,797 1,189 31.3% 171 4.5%
Study Area 9,617 3,241 33.7% 388 12.0%
Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 1 1,882 695 36.9% 35 1.8% Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 2 2,730 900 33% 157 5.7% Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 3 1,208 457 37.8% 25 2.1% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 1 1,002 320 31.9% 23 2.2% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 2 1,055 317 30.0% 58 5.5% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 3 1,740 552 31.7% 90 5.2% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010e. Universe: Total population 2010 Census Summary File 1 (2010); Compiled by ICF (2012).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2754 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-5
Table 8. Population Counts for the City of Santa Ana (1990-2011) Year Population Increase Average Annual Growth (persons/year) Average Annual Growth Rate 1990 293,827 -- -- --
2000 337,977 15% 4,415 1.31%
2010 324,528 4% 1,345 0.4%
2011 325,228 0.2% 700 0.02%
Sources: City of Santa Ana 2011b.

3.1.1.3 Projected Population and Housing
As mentioned previously, the County and City are located within the SCAG planning area.

SCAG forecasts population, housing, and employment through its Growth Forecast. The SCAG forecasts for the County and City through the year 2035 are provided in Table 9. The County had 2.9 million people in 2000 and the population is projected to increase to 3.6 million by 2035.

This represents an annual growth rate of 0.8 percent.

Table 9 shows that the City’s population is projected to increase by 15,673 people (four percent) between 2010 and 2035. This equates to an average of approximately 627 persons annually citywide. As of 2010, the City’s housing stock consisted of 76,896 dwelling units. In 2010, the average household size in the City was 4.37 persons per household compared to 2.99 persons per household for the County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census). In 2035, the number of households it is projected to be 77,769, which represents an increase of 6.5 percent over 2000.

The population of Census Tract 744.05 (SCAG RTP is not available for Block Groups) is projected to be 9,491 persons in 2015 and 9,713 persons in 2035 (see Table 9). The households are projected to grow by 27.2 percent by 2035. The population of Census Tract 744.06 is projected to be 4,015 persons in 2015 and 5,106 persons in 2035. The households are projected to grow by 21.8 percent by 2035.

3.1.1.4 Neighborhoods/Communities
The following discussion is focused on the population and housing study area which encompasses an area where the potential population and housing impacts, if any, of construction and operation of the proposed project would be reasonably foreseeable. As mentioned previously, this area includes Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1, 2, and 3 (located along the north side of Santa Ana Boulevard) and Census Tract 744.06, Block Groups 1, 2 and 3 (located along the south side of Santa Ana Boulevard). The population and housing study area can be characterized as an established residential community due to certain characteristics of the existing neighborhoods, including their apparent longevity, and physical and spatial attributes as well as a mix of older and newer land uses as described below.1 There are three neighborhoods within the study area and a community center, schools, churches, parks, and the City’s Civic Center in close proximity to the study area. A physical barrier (i.e., the Metrolink tracks) divides

1 For the purpose of this analysis, a community is defined as a population rooted in one place, where the daily life of each member involves contact with and dependence on other members.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2755 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-6
the population and housing study area into similar, yet individually cohesive western and eastern sections.

According to the U.S. Census, the average household size of the population and housing study area is 4.39 persons per household. The majority of the households moved to this area in 2005 or later. Approximately 78 percent of those workers 16 years or older use a car, truck, or van to commute to work. Seventeen percent use public transportation (bus), 3.7 percent walked to work, and one percent biked to work. The majority of workers traveled anywhere from 15 to 89 minutes or more to work and only 11 percent of those workers had a commute time of less than 9 minutes (U.S. Census Bureau 2010h).

The Logan Neighborhood is the closest residential neighborhood located west of the railroad tracks and north of Santa Ana Boulevard (Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1, 2, and 3). This neighborhood consists of one- to two-story single-family houses, multi-family units, neighborhood commercial and intense industrial operations, particularly outdoor operations.

This residential neighborhood is part of the Logan Barrio, one of several original Mexican barrios in Santa Ana. This area was primarily occupied by Mexican immigrants, most of whom were day laborers. This area was developed in the 1920s, likely as a result of the railroad and was originally one of the few neighborhoods in Santa Ana where Latinos could purchase a home and live prior to the enactment of the Fair Housing Act and the affordance of similar housing discrimination protections. On the north side of Stafford Street, between Logan Street and Lincoln Avenue, was once the location of the Logan School, a racially-segregated public school that served the Logan neighborhood. Today, children in this neighborhood would attend likely Garfield Elementary School, Sierra Intermediate, or Albor Charter. A small market and restaurant (La Chiquita) located at the intersection of Custer Street and Washington Street, serves the local community. Most properties along Lincoln Avenue are industrial; although, some residential properties still remain. A community recreation center and park is located in Chepa’s Park, providing services for both adults and children. Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks are located throughout the neighborhood and pedestrians were observed walking along Lincoln Avenue, Santa Ana Boulevard, and Logan Street during a site visit conducted in February 2012.

Bicyclists using the local streets were also observed during the site visit.

A second residential area is located south of Fruit Street between Eastwood and Grand Avenue, south and east of the project’s limits of disturbance (Census Tract 744.06, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3). The area consists of single-family residences and some multi-family units, located along Eastwood Avenue between Fruit Street and 4th Street. This area generally appears wellestablished and homes were likely constructed during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Just south of Santa Ana Boulevard is the Phoenix House, a drug and rehabilitation center for those who suffer from substance abuse and co-occurring mental health problems. Also within Census Tract 744.06 is the SARTC terminal which provides transportation, employment and other services to the study area, City and County. Tenants at the SARTC terminal include Amtrak, Greyhound Lines, Crucero, Transportes Intercalifornias, Tres Estrellas de Oro, County of Orange Social Services, State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), the City of Santa Ana WORK (Work/Opportunities/Resources/Knowledge) Center, Café Express, and K. Lee Gifts Shop. The WORK Center combines energy and resources from various agencies to provide integrated job and workforce development services, including job search assistance, employee referrals and placement, unemployment insurance filing, and career counseling (City EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2756 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-7
of Santa Ana 2011a). Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks are located throughout the neighborhood and pedestrians were observed along Eastwood and 4th Street. Many pedestrians and bicyclists were observed during the site visit walking from their homes to neighboring businesses on 4th Street and Grand Avenue. While there are no other community facilities immediately adjacent to the project’s construction boundary, there are several parks, churches, and schools within walking distance (refer to Figure 6).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2757 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-8
Table 9. Projected Population, Housing, and Employment
Area
Population Households Employment
20002015Percent Increase (2000-2015)
2035Percent Increase (2000-2035)
20002015Percent Increase (2000-2015)
2035Percent Increase (2000-2035)
20002015Percent Increase (2003-2015)
2035Percent Increase (2003-2035
Orange County 2,846,289 3,451,755 21.3 3,653,990 28.4 935,287 1,071,810 14.6 1,118,490 19.6 1,567,389 1,837,771 17.3 1,960,63 3 25.1
City of Santa Ana 337,977 371,043 9.8 380,613 12.6 73,002 77,192 5.7 77,769 6.5 169,226 183,962 8.7 184,742 9.2 Study Area
(Census Tract
744.05)
6,965 9,491 36.3 9,713 39.5 1,399 1,773 26.7 1,779 27.2 1,899 2,122 11.7 2,122 11.7 Study Area
(Census Tract
744.06)
3,838 4,015 4.6 5,106 33.0 830 832 0.2 1011 21.8 5,986 6,104 2.0 6,104 2.0 Note: 2000 Population and Household information taken from 2000 Census Data. 2003 Employment taken from SCAG RTP projections table.

Source: 2008 SCAG RTP projections table. Available at: http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/excel/RTP07_CityLevel.xls. Data is not available for Block Groups.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2758 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-9
Another newer development just outside the limits of disturbance is the Santiago Lofts, located along Santa Ana Boulevard between Santiago Street and Poinsetta Street (Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1). This development consists of 108 Live/Work Lofts and is Orange County’s first transit-oriented live/work loft community (Urban West 2011). This development was marketed to consumers who have home based offices and are commuters to San Diego and Los Angeles. The live/work loft development includes two upper floors of living area over a ground floor workspace (Urban West 2011).

The Lacy Neighborhood is located southwest of the project site, south of Civic Center Drive and west of Main Street (Census Tract 744.05, Block Group 1), just outside of the project’s limits of disturbance. This neighborhood consists of one- to two-story single-family houses, neighborhood commercial to four-story multi-family buildings with industrial land uses at the east end of the neighborhood. There are several churches and two schools within the neighborhood that are within walking distance from the homes (refer to Figure 6). Several small commercial, retail, and light industrial businesses are found at the southern end of this neighborhood. Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks are located throughout the neighborhood.

Many pedestrians and bicyclists were observed during the site visit walking from their homes to neighboring businesses.

Community Issues and Attitudes
A brief presentation of the project was made to the Santa Ana City Council on November 28, 2011. The presentation included a brief overview of the project, the proposed project schedule, and potential dates for future public outreach meetings.

A public information meeting was held on December 18, 2013 from 6:00 to 8:30 pm at SARTC at 1000 East Santa Ana Boulevard, in the City of Santa Ana. The meeting allowed visitors to learn more about the proposed project, discuss the proposed project design, review the technical studies prepared for the project, and discuss how the proposed project may affect them or their property. A presentation was made that included an overview of the project, the proposed project schedule, current project status, potential right-of-way impacts, and environmental studies completed to date, and ended with a “Question and Answer” session. The presentation and all meeting handout materials were translated into Spanish and a Spanish translator was also present. Following the presentation, project team members met with visitors and answered any additional questions raised by the public. Present at the meeting from the project team were City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency, OCTA, Caltrans, AECOM, and ICF International.

Approximately 40 visitors attended the meeting. Many of those who attended the meeting were business owners or residents in the nearby Logan Neighborhood and Santa Ana Lofts. Most of them were supportive of the project and wondered if funding was available for the project; what were the potential funding sources; and how soon the project would start. They also inquired how the proposed project fit into the proposed SARTC Master Plan and the Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Projects, and whether different design options such as lowering the railroad tracks instead of the roadway were considered. Others expressed concern over the removal of parking spaces at the SARTC station during the construction period. There were also concerns that were outside the scope of this project, such as the need to widen Santa Ana EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2759 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-10
Boulevard west of Santiago Boulevard to the City’s Civic Center and the issue of speeding along Santa Ana Boulevard and in the City of Santa Ana.

In order to get an understanding of the values, issues, and attitudes of the affected communities a search of media reports, community plans, local community organization, and homeowner associations was conducted. It was discovered that the communities within the study area have an extensive history of community activism. The Logan neighborhood has strong roots that span generations and the residents are dedicated to their community and have a deep sense of pride in its history and culture. In 2009, Latino Health Access, the Logan Neighborhood Association, and the St. Joseph’s Hospital in the City of Orange entered into a partnership to build grassroots leadership of residents, in order to confront neighborhood issues (Latino Health Access 2011).

During the first phase of this work the Barrio Logan Empowerment Committee was created and identified the following three main areas of community concern: 1) activities and events; 2) safety –pedestrian and public safety; and 3) environmental health, particularly concerns over the Ware Disposal company and other harmful industrial businesses (Latino Health Access 2011).

Since then the Empowerment Committee has organized social and cultural events to meet the community’s need for family activities, creating solidarity among residents.

As mentioned previously in Table 1, there are several large development projects proposed for the study area, including the SARTC Expansion, Santa Ana to Garden Grove Fixed Guideway Project, and Transit Zoning Code. As part of the SARTC Master Plan and Fixed Guideway projects, the City is in the process of hosting public workshops with the local community to provide information on the projects and to solicit community input. About 50 people attended the meeting held in May 2011. During the workshops, the community expressed the need for additional employment and educational opportunities and outdoor children’s play areas. The community also expressed the need to improve and increase bicycle access/paths and the need for a bridge across Santa Ana Boulevard to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. They were also concerned about local impacts from the proposed grade separation project.

The Lacy Neighborhood also has a strong history of community activism. The neighborhood formed a group called the Friends of the Historic Lacy Neighborhood (Friends), a grassroots organization of local preservationists which formed to oppose the demolition of several historic homes associated with the Transit Zone Code project. The case was settled and the City was asked to revised and re-circulate the Transit Zoning Code Draft EIR (News Santa Ana 2010).

The population and housing study area can be characterized as an established residential community due to certain characteristics of the existing neighborhoods, including their apparent longevity, and physical and spatial attributes as well as a mix of older and newer land uses.2 In addition, there are community centers, schools, churches, parks, and the City’s Civic Center in close proximity to the project site. The Logan and Lacy all have very active neighborhood associations with an extensive history of community activism. A physical barrier (i.e. the Metrolink tracks) divides the population and housing study area into similar, yet individually cohesive western and eastern sections. Community cohesiveness in the study appears to be high.

2 For the purpose of this analysis, a community is defined as a population rooted in one place, where the daily life of each member involves contact with and dependence on other members.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2760 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-11

3.1.1.5 Housing
Existing Housing
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total number of housing units in the County was 1,049,031 of which 63.1 percent comprised of single-family units, and 34.1 percent comprised multi-family units, 2.9 percent comprised mobile homes (refer to Table 10). Of the total housing units in the County, 94.6 percent were occupied and 5.4 percent were vacant (refer to Table 11).

Of the total occupied housing units, 59.3 percent were owner-occupied and 40.7 percent were rented (refer to Table 12).

As of 2010, the total number of housing units in the City was 76,251 of which 52.7 percent comprised single-family units, 42.1 percent comprised multi-family units, and 5.2 percent comprised mobile homes (refer to Table 10). In 2010, 95.2 percent were occupied and 5.4 percent were vacant (refer to Table 11). Of the total occupied housing units, 47.5 percent were owner-occupied and 52.5 percent were rented (refer to Table 12). The County proportions for owner-occupied units were 11.8 percent higher than those for the City (refer to Table 12).

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the total number of housing units in the population and housing study area was 2,291 of which 38.1 percent comprised single-family units, 61.3 percent comprised multi-family units, and 1.5 percent comprised mobile homes (refer to Table 10). As of 2010, 93.8 percent were occupied and 6.2 percent were vacant, generally resembling the housing characteristics for the City (see Table 11). Of the occupied housing units, 19 percent were owner-occupied, while 81 percent were renter occupied. As shown in Table 12, the percentage of owner-occupied housing units in the population and housing study area was much lower than both the City and the County.

The median sales price for homes in Santa Ana between November 2011 and January 2012 was $285,000 based on 511 home sales (Trulia 2012a). Compared to the same period one year ago, the median home sales price increased 3.6 percent or $10,000, and the number of home sales decreased 24%. The median sales price for a home in the population and housing study area ranges from $178,000 to $289,000 (Trulia 2012b).

Table 10. Existing Regional and Local Housing Characteristics – Type (2010) Area
Total
Units
SingleFamily % Multi
Family %
Mobile
Homes %
Orange County1 1,049,031 661,204 63.1 357,500 34.1 30,327 2.9 City of Santa Ana1 76,251 40,185 52.7 32,133 42.1 3,933 5.2 Census Tract 1744.051 1,444 434 30.1 1,010 69.9 -- --
Census Tract 744.061 847 439 51.8 395 46.6 13 1.5
Study Area 2,291 873 38.1 1,405 61.3 13 1.5
Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 12 286 33 11.5 253 88.5 - 0.0
Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 22 490 139 28.4 351 71.6 - 0.0
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2761 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-12
Area
Total
Units
SingleFamily % Multi
Family %
Mobile
Homes %
Census Tract 744.05
Block Group 4 2
(changed to Block
Group 3 in 2010
Census)
259 48 18.5 211 81.5 - 0.0
Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 12 216 77 35.6 139 64.4 - 0.0
Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 22 243 156 64.2 87 35.8 - 0.0
Census Tract 744.06
Block Group 32 387 148 38.2 239 61.8 - 0.0
Sources: 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2008–2012 American Community Survey. 2 2010 Data not available at the Block Group Level, 2000 housing data is shown Table 11. Existing Regional and Local Housing Characteristics – Occupancy (2010) Area Total Occupied % Vacant %
Persons Per
Household
Orange County 1,048,907 992,871 94.6% 56,126 5.4% 3.0
City of Santa Ana 76,896 73,174 95.2% 3,722 4.8% 4.4
Census Tract 744.05 1,468 1,395 95.0% 73 5.0% 4.4
Census Tract 744.06 999 919 92.0% 80 8.0% 4.4
Study Area 2,467 2,314 93.8% 153 6.2% 4.4
Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 1 429 412 96.0% 17 4.0% 4.5 Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 2 772 726 94.0% 46 6.0% 3.6 Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 3 267 257 96.3% 10 3.7% 4.9 Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 1 205 193 94.1% 12 5.8% 4.6 Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 2 253 243 96% 10 4% 4.3 Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 3
541 483 89.3% 58 10.7
%

3.6 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010f. Census of Population and Housing, Occupancy Status Summary File 1 (2010); Households and Families: 2010 Census Summary File 1. Compiled by ICF (2012).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2762 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-13
Table 12. Existing Regional and Local Housing Characteristics – Tenure (2010) Area
Occupied
Units
Owner
Occupied
Units %
Renter
Occupied
Units %
Orange County 992,781 588,313 59.3% 404,468 40.7%
City of Santa Ana 73,174 34,756 47.5% 38,418 52.5%
Census Tract 744.05 1,395 265 19.0% 1,130 81.0%
Census Tract 744.06 919 245 27% 674 73.3%
Study Area 2,314 510 22.0% 1,804 78.0%
Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 1 412 34 8.3% 378 91.7% Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 2 726 201 27.7% 525 72.3% Census Tract 744.05 Block Group 3 257 30 11.6% 227 88.3% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 1 193 35 18.1% 158 81.9% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 2 243 137 56.4% 106 43.6% Census Tract 744.06 Block Group 3 483 73 15.1% 410 84.9% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010g. 2010 Census. Tenure, Household Size, and Age of Householder: 2010.

Summary File 1, Tables H4, H16, and H17; Compiled by ICF (2012).

Affordable Housing
The Santa Ana Housing Authority provides rental assistance through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8. The following table lists some of the affordable and transitional housing units and apartments within 0.5 mile of the project site:

Table 13. Affordable and Transitional Housing
Project Name and Address Total Project Units Total Affordable Units Garden Court -300 E. Santa Ana Blvd. 84 42
703 N. Lacy 26 26
901 E. Sixth St. 24 24
605-611 E. Washington 36 35
1025 N. Spurgeon 4 4
1101 N. French 1 1
1115 N. Bush 2 2
600 M. Lacy Street 74 73
631 N. Lacy Street and 680 N. Garfield 39 39
Santiago Villas 939 E. 17th St. 89 89
805-807 N. Garfield (transitional housing) 21 21
717 E. Third Street 1 1
212 Third Street, 207 Bush Street, 227 Bush
Street, 247 Bush Street, 263, Bush Street
5 5
1006 N. Logan St. 1 1
1012 N. Logan St. 1 1
1015 N. Logan St. 1 1
Francis Xavier - 801 E. Santa Ana Blvd 12 12
Source: City of Santa Ana, 2012. AB987 Affordable Housing Database Last Updated 10/01/2012.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2763 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-14
Proposed Housing
In addition to the planned housing projects identified in Table 1, implementation of the City’s proposed Transit Zoning Code would also result in new residential housing intended to accommodate existing and future population growth forecasted for the City. As proposed, implementation of the Transit Zoning Code could result in a net growth of up to 4,075 residential units. Most of the development would occur on the few remaining undeveloped lots or underutilized properties, or would be redevelopment of existing units.

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

3.1.2.1 Regional Population Characteristics
The proposed project is designed to enhance traffic operations; improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety; improve emergency response times; and reduce existing traffic congestion at the existing Santa Ana Boulevard/OCTA Metrolink at-grade railroad crossing. Such improvements are consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, directly or indirectly. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth would be consistent with those contemplated in existing plans for the area and in addition the Department has no jurisdiction over local land use decisions that influence growth. Furthermore, no new or expanded utilities, housing, or other similar permanent physical changes to the environment would be necessary as an indirect consequence of the proposed project. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, directly or indirectly. No adverse effects are anticipated. For a discussion on population and housing impacts on low-income or minority residents, please refer to Chapter 3.5, Environmental Justice.

3.1.2.2 Neighborhoods/Communities
Short-term (Construction)
Construction activities would result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions to the local community in the proposed project area, primarily related to: construction-related traffic changes from construction trucks and equipment in the area; partial and/or complete street and lane closures on Santa Ana Boulevard; road detour; increased noise and vibration; and fugitive dust.

The project would not decrease public access, divide neighborhoods, or separate residences from community facilities, although there would be some degree of inconvenience due to obstruction created at construction sites, associated traffic detours, parking restrictions, and sidewalk closures.

During the construction period, Santa Ana Boulevard would be reduced from a six-lane to a fourlane roadway. In order to determine the effect of this temporary reduction in capacity, a roadway segment analysis for Santa Ana Boulevard was conducted as part of the Traffic/Circulation Study (AECOM 2012). The study concluded that the reduction in capacity along Santa Ana EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2764 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-15
Boulevard would not result in unacceptable delays or reduce levels of service between Santiago Street and the I-5 Freeway and that surrounding roadways could accommodate a shift in traffic due to the construction activities along Santa Ana Boulevard, with the exception of Grand Avenue between 4th Street and Santa Ana Boulevard. Refer to Section 4.2, for additional information regarding construction traffic impacts.

During Phase 1 of construction, the proposed detour road along Santa Ana Boulevard would be used for 12 months and during Phase 2 it would be used for approximately six months. During construction of the detour road, pedestrians would be able to use the sidewalk along Santa Ana Boulevard; after construction of the detour road, pedestrians would be able to travel on the sidewalk along the detour route. An additional detour road would be provided immediately east of Fuller Street providing access to Washington Avenue, Fuller Street, and Lincoln Avenue from Santa Ana Boulevard. Many of the residences and businesses in the area would likely use this road to access the Logan Neighborhood, the Logan Recreation center, and the businesses that are along Fuller Street and Lincoln Avenue during the construction period. Access to SARTC would continue to be provided along Santiago Street via the detour road. Access to the Phoenix House would continue to be provided along Fruit Street, which would not be affected by construction activities. These minor circulation impacts would be temporary and would cease at project completion.

In order to minimize any potential impacts with respect to community character and cohesion, pedestrian access points to businesses and community facilities within the construction area will be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would be required to develop a TMP (Measure TRF-1), which would include recommendations to minimize traffic impacts from construction activities. It is anticipated that some of the proposed measures in the TMP would include: a Public Awareness Campaign to inform the public about construction activities, the use of portable Changeable Message Signs, a Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP), Traffic Control Officers, and reduced speed zones.

With regard to pedestrians, temporary sidewalks would be constructed during the construction phase, as mentioned earlier. Disabled access, such as ramps compliant with the ADA, will be maintained during construction where feasible. The City’s “Bikeway Master Plan” does not identify any existing bike lanes within the existing project’s limits of construction; therefore, no impacts on bike lanes or paths are anticipated during the construction period. Appropriate signage will be developed and displayed to direct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to businesses via alternate routes that were described earlier. Appropriate streetlights will be installed to reduce safety hazards to pedestrians.

Construction would also result in increased truck traffic on local streets, which could contribute to short-term air quality and noise impacts on sensitive receptors within the study area. The Air Quality Report provides the following measures to reduce potential air quality impacts on sensitive receptors within the study area:
• AQ-1: The project would conform to Caltrans’ construction requirements, as specified in Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, Section 7-1.01F (Air Pollution Control): “The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, including any air pollution control rules, EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2765 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-16
regulations, ordinances and statutes, specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code.”
• AQ-2: The proposed project, although not a large operation under the Rule’s definition, would be required to implement measures for each source of PM10 emissions, as specified in SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) Implementation Handbook.

The Noise Study Report prepared for the project states that the closest sensitive receptor locations may also be subject to short-term noise generated by construction activities and longterm noise impacts and provides the following measures to reduce potential noise impacts:
• N-1: Comply with the construction hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Noise Section 18-314.
• N-2: Noise control will conform to the provisions in Section 14-8.02 and Standard Special Provision S5-310. The noise level from the contractor’s operations between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. will not exceed 86 dBA Leq (h) at a distance of 50 feet.

This requirement in no way relieves the contractor from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise levels. The contractor should use an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws. In addition, the contractor will equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturerrecommended mufflers and will not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate muffler.
• N-3: The sound barriers that are determined to be reasonable and feasible shall be coordinated with the affected property owners. All benefited residents and property owners will be notified should a change in placement or removal of any soundwall occur during the design phase. Additionally, all residents/property owners will be notified of final soundwall locations prior to 100 percent PS&E.

Long-term (Operation)
The study area seems to be a collectively cohesive community, despite its separation by the existing Metrolink tracks and Santa Ana Boulevard. As mentioned previously, the neighborhoods within the study area all display strong cohesive characteristics.

The proposed grade separation is for an existing roadway (Santa Ana Boulevard), where a physical barrier (Metrolink) already exists. As part of the grade separation the proposed project includes: minor improvements to the Santa Ana Boulevard/Santiago Street intersection; terminating Logan Street north of Santa Ana Boulevard by constructing a cul-de-sac; and improvements to Fuller Street, both north and south of Santa Ana Boulevard. The planned culde-sac at Logan Street would alter existing vehicular patterns for residents residing on Logan Street and Stafford Street by eliminating direct access to Santa Ana Boulevard. While there would be some access and circulation impacts associated with the closing of Logan Street, no long term access impacts would occur since there are other nearby streets that would provide access to Santa Ana Boulevard; therefore, this closure would not seriously affect community cohesion, and would not result in the division of an existing community or separate residences from existing community facilities. No adverse effects would occur. Refer to Section 4.2, EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2766 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-17
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, for a more detailed analysis of longterm circulation and access impacts associated with the Logan Street closure.

The proposed includes the construction of an underpass bridge (i.e., roadway going under the railroad tracks) and retaining walls to be constructed along Santa Ana Boulevard within the project area. Two pedestrian bridges are proposed: one on each side of the proposed railroad bridge. The proposed pedestrian bridges would allow connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC. The exact bridge type and configuration will be determined during the final design phase of the project. Currently, pedestrians have to cross the railroad tracks at-grade.

Depressing the profile of Santa Ana Boulevard under the adjacent Metrolink tracks would improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety along Santa Ana Boulevard. In addition to a new public sidewalk, an approximately 42-foot corridor is being reserved along the southerly portion of the alignment for a future bikeway and transit right-of-way proposed under the Santa AnaGarden Grove Fixed Guideway project. The pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Santa Ana Boulevard and Santiago Street, which is the primary pedestrian access across Santa Ana Boulevard, would remain as part of the proposed project. The project would have beneficial effects on community cohesion when measured against the existing railroad operations on the community, since the proposed pedestrian bridges and grade separation would improve connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC. No adverse effects are anticipated.

Up to eight nonresidential properties (composed of 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project and would need to be fully acquired, and an additional two nonresidential properties would be affected by partial acquisitions (APN 398-101-15 and 398-101-16) and would require some property reconfiguration but would not result in displacement (refer to Tables 2 and 3). These properties currently house private businesses and government facilities. Current real estate market data indicate that there are similar types of businesses within a five-mile radius of the project site and it is reasonable to expect that such businesses would be able to relocated without undue difficulty (see Appendix A, Relocation Impact Memorandum (RIM)). Relocation of these businesses would not cause substantial impacts on neighborhood and community cohesion related activities, since the businesses do not appear to serve the surrounding local community.

Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts on neighborhood and community cohesion by reducing traffic delays on Santa Ana Boulevard and improving connectivity of the residential neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixeduse developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC with the addition of the pedestrian bridge.

3.1.2.3 Housing
Short-term (Construction)
Potential household impacts are related to acquisition and displacement effects. No short-term residential displacements are proposed so no short-term household impacts are anticipated. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth would be consistent with those contemplated in existing regional and local plans for the area
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2767 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-18
Long-term (Operation)
No permanent residential displacements are proposed so no long-term household impacts are anticipated. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth would be consistent with those contemplated in existing regional and local plans for the area.

Cumulative
Other planned projects in the area may be under construction in the same time frame as the proposed project. To the extent that construction periods overlap, there could be the potential for cumulative local level traffic impacts that could result from multiple project detours and lane reductions occurring simultaneously in and adjacent to the study area, potentially resulting in increased traffic delays and congestion on study area local roadways. The City would coordinate the timing of project detours and lane closures for all planned projects in the study area in order to minimize cumulative construction traffic impacts. In addition, the proposed project and other projects would be required to develop a TMP to provide recommendations to minimize traffic impacts of construction activities.

The Traffic/Circulation Study Report evaluated future traffic conditions in the years 2016 and 2035, which accounts for planned development in the project area and an ambient annual growth rate of 0.5 percent per year. As a result, this traffic analysis constitutes the operational cumulative analysis for the project. According to the cumulative traffic analysis, the study area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS)3 in the
years 2016 and 2035 with the exception of Fuller Street/Santa Ana Boulevard, which would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. However, this intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions. The proposed project in conjunction with other planned projects is not anticipated to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts that affect mobility in the project study area.

3.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize short-term impacts on the community during the construction period, the proposed project would implement a TMP (Measure TRF-1) to provide recommendations to minimize traffic impacts of construction activities. The Air Quality Report also includes standard measures (AQ-1 and AQ-2) for dust control during construction, as stipulated by SCAQMD’s Rule 403, and the Noise Study Report includes standard avoidance measures (N-1 to N-3), which would be implemented to reduce construction and operation noise.

3 The ability of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured in terms of LOS. Traffic flow is classified by LOS, ranging from LOS A (free-flow traffic with low volumes and high speeds) to LOS F (traffic volume exceeds design capacity with forced flow and substantial delays.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2768 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-19

3.2 Economic Conditions

3.2.1 Affected Environment

3.2.1.1 Regional Economy
According to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau in the 2007 Economic Census, most business establishments, sales, and employees in Orange County were distributed among manufacturing, retail trade, information, real estate, professional services, administrative and support services, educational service, health care and social assistance, arts and entertainment, accommodation and food service, and other service industries (refer to Table 14). The City of Santa Ana also had a similar employment market mix (refer to Table 15). According to experts, economic conditions became more challenging across the Country in 2009, as consumers kept spending in check, manufacturing weakened, housing stagnated, and credit remained tight.4 This trend has continued into 2011, placing increased burden on local businesses and commerce.

Within the City, median home prices have fallen over 40 percent, their lowest since 2003. The decline in property values has spilled over into the commercial sector which is negatively impacting the business community and local redevelopment efforts. A recent report from the State of California EDD puts the preliminary December 2013 unemployment rate in Santa Ana at

8.5 percent, the second highest in Orange County ; however, this is a marked improvement over the 14.3 percent unemployment rate that was reflected in March 2011 (California EDD). These economic indicators mean City residents have less disposable income due to limited job growth and decreased home values. The City anticipates a very slow recovery and growth in revenue.

Key revenues including sales, property, and utility user’s tax have declined and the City has had to reduce its budget by approximately $46 million.5 6
Table 14. County of Orange Economic Statistics, 2007
Business Type
Number of
Businesses
Sales or Receipts
($1,000)
Annual Payroll
($1,000)
Number of
Employees
Manufacturing 5,351 49,131,942 8,641,374 177,115
Retail Trade 9,991 45,022,513 4,304,263 159,810
Information 1,611 NA1 2,637,914 40,147
Real Estate, Rental, & Leasing 5,566 10,688,193 2,161,574 43,366 Professional, Scientific, & Technical
Services 14,047 20,906,606 7,991,194 114,452
Administrative & Support & Waste
Management & Remediation Services 4,803 11,357,159 4,922,519 158,729 Educational Service 848 662,049 221,054 8,270

4 Source: “What Caused the Financial Crisis,” Federal Reserve Bank, Available online at http://timeline.stlouisfed.org/. Accessed July 2009. 5 Source: City of Santa Ana. 2011c. Budget Stabilization Study. August 2011. Available online at http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/documents/20110919_management_partners_report.pdf. Accessed November 2011. 6 Source: City of Santa Ana website, 2011d. Santa Ana’s Budget: Tough Times, Tough Decisions. Available online at http://www.santa-ana.org/. Accessed November 2011.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2769 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-20
Business Type
Number of
Businesses
Sales or Receipts
($1,000)
Annual Payroll
($1,000)
Number of
Employees
Health Care & Social Assistance 9,967 16,300,406 5,914,985 133,174 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 974 3,513,821 1,038,543 37,151 Accommodation & Food Service 6,854 8,247,828 2,366,656 141,702 Other Services (except Public
Administration) 5,111 3,635,969 967,358 34,627
1 NA: Not available or not comparable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, compiled by ICF (2011).

Table 15. City of Santa Ana Economic Statistics, 2007
Business Type Number of
Businesses
Sales or Receipts
($1,000)
Annual Payroll
($1,000)
Number of
Employees
Manufacturing 875 5,339,942 954,410 23,728
Retail Trade 920 3,346,127 372,772 13,893
Information 114 N1 272,402 4,432
Real Estate, Rental, & Leasing 347 443,747 125,336 2,868 Professional, Scientific, & Technical
Services 1,019 1,666,588 671,862 11,142
Administrative & Support & Waste
Management & Remediation Services 441 1,193,715 594,917 23,317 Educational Service 46 46,547 19,043 544
Health Care & Social Assistance 865 1,266,417 473,224 11,691 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 41 87,511 25,897 1,061 Accommodation & Food Service 518 447,400 119,169 7,690
Other Services (except Public
Administration) 470 349,103 89,913 3,282
Total 5,656 14,187,097 3,718,945 103,648 1
N: Not available or not comparable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census (2007), compiled by ICF (2011).

3.2.1.2 Employment and Income
According to the EDD, as of December 2011 there were approximately 1,580,600 people in the County’s labor force, of which approximately 1,472,300 were employed, and 123,900 were unemployed resulting in an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent. For the same period, there were approximately 160,400 people in the City’s labor force, of which approximately 140,700 people were employed, and 19,700 were unemployed resulting in an unemployment rate of about 12.3 percent. Of the City’s total labor force, approximately 67.3 percent were males and 50.9 percent were females.

Income data was obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census at the Census Tract level (see Table 22, “Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics—Income/Poverty (2012). This data indicate that per capita income for the population and housing study area population ($13,931) is EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2770 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-21
lower than that of the City’s per capita income ($16,330), and the County’s per capita income ($34,233)7.

According to the City’s Housing Element, approximately 71 percent of Santa Ana workforce is employed within the County. While the majority of employed Santa Ana residents work outside of the City, approximately 21 percent work within the City. The top six places where Santa Ana residents work are in Santa Ana, Irvine, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Orange, and the City of Los Angeles (City of Santa Ana 2009).

3.2.1.3 Business Activity
The study area contains a variety of business developments, ranging from small retail stores to light industrial businesses. Most of the industrial and manufacturing businesses are found near the railroad right-of-way and Lincoln Avenue in the Logan Neighborhood. There are several auto repair and salvage, auto parts and tire stores in the study area along 2nd Street, 3rd Street, 4th Street, 5th Street, and Hathaway Street. The Santa Ana Lofts, Waterline Technologies Inc., Red Cup IT Consulting, Austin Hardwoods & Hardware are located along Santiago Street south of Santa Ana Boulevard. There are other light industrial businesses, a disposal center (Ware Disposal), auto repair and services, and manufacturing businesses located along 6th Street, Poinsettia Street, Logan Street, Washington Avenue, and Lincoln Avenue. In addition, the SARTC Terminal also maintains small retail shops to serve travelers.

3.2.1.4 Fiscal Conditions
The California Board of Equalization Report of Taxable Sales for the second quarter of 2010 estimated the County’s total taxable sales at $11,927,660, which represents an increase of six percent from the previous year. For the City, total taxable sales for the same period were estimated at $799,931, an increase of 2.1 percent from the previous year. As such, taxable sales have increased more in the County than in the City.

Property taxes in the project area are collected by the Orange County Treasurer–Tax Collector.

According to the County of Orange Property Tax Statistical Data, the County collected almost $5.2 million in property taxes in 2012–2013 (County of Orange Auditor-Controller 2013). The total property tax revenue collected in 2013 by the City was estimated at $28.6 million. The gross taxable value of properties in the City of Santa Ana was estimated at $20,093,576 in 2013 (Santa Ana Finance and Management Service Agency 2013).

The project site is within the within a California Enterprise Zone, a geographically-targeted state incentives program to encourage economic development. Businesses within an Enterprise Zone are eligible for a tax credit for hiring, sales or use tax credits, and may be able to deduct part of the costs of property purchase from their tax liability. If a business is to move to an area in which it would not receive these benefits, then relocation could contribute in financial difficulties. The majority of the City is classified as a State Enterprise Zone, so any relocation within Santa Ana is likely to confer the same benefits to businesses as the prior location.

7 2010 US Census Per Capita Income and Poverty Level data not available at the block group level time of preparation of this report.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2771 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-22

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.2.2.1 Regional Economy
Short-term (Construction)
Construction activities could potentially result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions to the local businesses in proximity to the project site, primarily related to construction-related traffic changes from trucks and equipment in the area; road detours; increased noise and vibration; lighting; and increases in fugitive dust. However, the proposed project includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to minimize disturbances resulting from increased noise, dust, and traffic within the study area. Access points to businesses and facilities within the construction area will be maintained throughout the construction period. The proposed project would prepare a TMP (Measure TRF-1) that would keep the surrounding community and public informed of the construction schedule, roadway closures, and detours.

During the construction period, TCEs on APNs 398-092-12, 398-092-13, 398-092-14, and 398- 092-15 would be required for the temporary detour road that would provide access from Santa Ana Boulevard to Washington Street and Fuller Street. They are shown in Figure 3 and the affected parcels are further described in Table 2. No impacts on the community, local businesses, or regional economy are anticipated as a result of the TCEs on these parcels, since these parcels are currently undeveloped and belong to the State of California, County of Orange, and City of Santa Ana and are not utilized by the neighboring community.

A TCE required on the baseball field of the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center (APN 398-101- 15) would be required in order to accommodate the proposed detour road (refer to Figure 3).

This TCE would affect a small portion of the existing baseball field, which encroaches into the Santa Ana Boulevard right-of-way. There appears to be sufficient space to reconfigure the baseball field once construction is complete. No impacts on the community, local businesses, or regional economy are anticipated as a result of this TCE, since the Rehabilitation Center would remain open during the construction period. In addition, there are no proposed road closures or detours that would affect access to the Rehabilitation Center.

The TCE at the County’s Public Works Construction and Facilities Operations Yard (APN 398- 101-16) would have no impact on the operation of the business or regional economy, since this facility is not a business that is open to the public. The TCE would result in the loss of some parking spaces for County employees; however, this would not affect operations of the facility, since additional parking for employees would be available at the adjacent County-owned parcels and on adjacent local streets.

No impacts on the business or regional economy are anticipated as a result of the TCE at the Freeway Truck Auto Wrecking (APN 398-361-12), which currently serves as an auto salvage yard. The TCE would only affect a small portion of the salvage yard and there are other areas of the property that can be used for racking and storage. It is anticipated that the business would remain open during this period. There are no road closures or detours proposed that would affect access to this business. Parking would continue to be available on adjacent streets.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2772 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-23
Construction of the temporary shoofly would require the full permanent acquisition of eight nonresidential properties, composed of 11 parcels, resulting in displacement requiring relocation.

A description of these businesses is provided in Tables 3 and 16. According to the RIM (Appendix A) that was prepared, there appears to be a sufficient supply of adequate sites to relocate all of the displacees within the City; therefore, there would be no impacts on the regional economy from loss of employment or loss of revenue, since it is anticipated that these businesses would be able to relocate in the City. Long-term impacts on the community from the relocation and acquisition of these businesses are discussed in Section 3.4.

Long-term (Operations)
Up to eight nonresidential properties (composed of 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project and would need to be fully acquired, and an additional two nonresidential properties would be affected by partial acquisitions (APN 398-101-15 and 398-101-16) and would require some property reconfiguration but would not result in displacement (refer to Tables 2 and 3). These properties currently house private businesses and government facilities according to a January 2012 field survey and a property records search. All of the properties that would be acquired are located east of the existing railroad right-of-way and Lincoln Avenue. Refer to Table 16 for a description of the type of business, and assessed value and type of businesses affected. The displaced businesses are not considered major employment centers or to have a regional function (airport, universities, and recreational areas). The ages of the businesses are open to interpretation; however, based on visual survey, the businesses range anywhere from one to over 15 years of age. The number of employees is based on visual survey of the properties as well as Assessor data accessed through Loopnet.com Property Records. All businesses appear to have 20 employees or fewer.

Table 16. Displaced Business Affected by the Project
APN
Building Size
(square feet)
Owner/
Tennant Inhabited
Property Type
(Existing Use)
Assessed value
as of 2011 (in $)
Taxes Paid
2011 (in $)
398-093-03 12,500 Tenant Industrial (automotive –
brake parts), appears
vacant
$463,630 $5,713
398-093-04
398-093-05
5,000 Tenant Industrial (textile
manufacturing)
$9,371 $1,433 $120
398-093-06 5,000 Tenant Industrial (crematory) $372,424 $4,805 398-093-07 5,000 Appears vacant Industrial (appears to be vacant)
$55,972 $903
398-093-08
398-093-13
2 buildings
7,200 & 5,400
Tenant and vacant Industrial (office supply
distribution and vacant)
$1,539,730 $5,974
$12,932
398-207-01
398-208-01
Multiple,
totaling 5,750
Owner Government (County of
Orange - vehicle storage
and gas station)
$192,689 $1,133
931-104-67
931-104-68
(formerly
398-342-18)
52,500 Tenant Office (geotechnical
drilling and engineering)
$4,300,000 $42,635
Sources: Loopnet.com Property Records (January 2012), and Field Survey (January 2012), AECOM 2012.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2773 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-24
The businesses that are anticipated to be displaced provide a variety of services and products such as automotive brake parts, textile manufacturing, video production, crematory, office supply distribution, and geotechnical drilling and engineering (refer to Table 16). The relocation of these businesses should not result in adverse effects to individuals, neighboring businesses, or the community or larger regional economy, as there appear to be similar businesses within the City of Santa Ana that provide the same or similar type of services and products. A search of comparable businesses was conducted and there are 10 automotive part shops, five textile manufacturers, five geotechnical firms, five crematories, seven video production companies, and two office supply distributors within a three-mile radius of the project site.

Based on real estate listings and the professional opinions of two local commercial real estate agents, there appear to be a sufficient supply of adequate sites to relocate all of the displacees within the immediate vicinity of the City of Santa Ana. Given the availability of suitable properties in the immediate vicinity of the project, displacement and relocation of businesses would not result in substantial hardship. Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended. Further analysis of acquisition and displacement is provided in the attached RIM (included as Appendix C) and Chapter 3.4, Relocations. Economic impacts from the displacement of these businesses are not considered adverse.

3.2.2.2 Employment and Income
Short-term (Construction)
During construction, TCEs for the proposed project would be required and are shown on Table 2 and Figure 3. As previously discussed in Section 3.2.2, Environmental Consequences, Regional Economy, Short-term (Construction) and Long-Term (Operations), with the exception of the businesses that would be acquired permanently, it is anticipated that the affected business and community facilities would remain open during the construction period. Construction activities would result in minor temporary impacts on local businesses associated with minor inconveniences from traffic detours, parking restrictions, and increased noise levels. Traffic and pedestrian detours routes would be provided to ensure that all businesses are accessible during construction. The TMP that would be prepared for the project would ensure that area residents and local businesses are informed of the construction schedule and traffic detours.

Construction of the proposed project could result in the creation of new construction-related jobs.

However, the jobs created during the construction phase of the project would not be substantial in the context of job growth in the City and region. No short-term impacts on employment and income are anticipated.

Long-term (Operations)
The businesses and government office that would be displaced as a result of the project are described above in Tables 3 and 16 and are not considered major employment centers. All businesses appear to have 20 employees or fewer. According to the RIM (Appendix C) that was prepared for the proposed project, there are ample relocation resources within the City to accommodate the displaced businesses and employees. Given the availability of suitable EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2774 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-25
properties in the immediate vicinity of the project, displacement and relocation of businesses and employees would not result in substantial hardship. Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended. As mentioned previously, the displaced businesses are not considered to be specialized businesses, and consumers can find similar products or services at alternative stores and businesses nearby (refer to Table 16). Further analysis of acquisition and displacement is provided in the attached RIM (included as Appendix C) and Chapter 3.4, Relocations.

3.2.2.3 Business Activity
Short-term (Construction)
During construction, TCEs for the proposed project would be required and are shown on Table 2 and Figure 3. As previously discussed in Section 3.2.2, Environmental Consequences, Regional Economy, Short-term (Construction) and Long-Term (Operations), with the exception of the businesses that would be acquired permanently, it is anticipated that the affected business would remain open during the construction period. Construction of the proposed improvements would result in minor temporary impacts on local businesses associated with inconvenience from construction activities. Temporary detours could result in minimally increased travel times along Santa Ana Boulevard for area residents, business patrons, and employees. As part of the TMP, the City would notify area residents and businesses of the construction schedule. Traffic and pedestrian detours routes would be provided to ensure that all businesses and residences are accessible during construction. Construction activities could result in a short-term benefit to local businesses, since construction workers on the project site may patronize local goods and service providers within the City. As mentioned previously, implementation of a TMP (Measure TRF-1) that informs the community and businesses about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction is expected to satisfactorily avoid and/or minimize potentially adverse effects on access to and from local businesses and employment. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

Long-term (Operations)
Up to eight nonresidential properties (on 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project (refer to Tables 3 and 16). An additional two nonresidential properties (APN 398-101-15 and 398-101- 16) would be partially acquired (sliver takes) and would require some property reconfiguration but would not result in displacement. These properties currently house private businesses and government facilities according to a January 2012 field survey and a property records search. As mentioned previously, the displaced businesses are not considered to be specialized businesses, and consumers can find similar products or services at alternative stores and businesses nearby.

Adequate relocation resources have been identified and deemed to be ample for current relocation purposes. Given the relatively modest number of business displacements, no substantial change to local business activity, including sales, transfers, and other economic activities, is anticipated to occur. Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended. Further analysis of acquisition and displacement is provided in the attached RIM (included as Appendix C) and Chapter 3.4, Relocations.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2775 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-26
Once the project is constructed, decreased congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard has the potential to allow regional patrons and community residents to access businesses more efficiently, thereby promoting business activity. This would be especially true for restaurants, retail stores, and businesses in the study area, as they are often automobile trip destinations for residents and visitors. Implementation of the proposed project would likely have a positive impact on businesses throughout the study area because of the improved access efficiency to surface streets.

3.2.2.4 Fiscal Conditions
Short-term (Construction)
Refer to the short-term impact discussion under Regional Economy and Employment and Income.

Long-term (Operations)
Refer to the long-term impact discussion under Regional Economy and Employment and Income. A number of businesses that would be displaced by the proposed project fall within California Enterprise Zones, a geographically-targeted state incentives program to encourage economic development. The following parcels which would be fully acquired are located within Enterprise Zones: 398-093-03, 398-093-04, 398-093-05, 398-093-06, 398-093-07, 398-093-08, 398-093-13, 931-104-67 (formerly 398-342-18), and 931-104-68 (formerly 398-342-18). As mentioned previously, the majority of the City is classified as a State Enterprise Zone, so any relocation within Santa Ana is likely to confer the same benefits to businesses as the prior location. The amount of property tax paid annually by the displaced business is shown in Table

16. The total amount of property taxes paid in 2011 by the displaced businesses was $75,648.

This total represents a small percentage of the $27.3 million that was collected by the City last year in property taxes. Impacts associated with the removal of business can result in losses to property and sales tax revenue. This loss in tax revenue would not be considered an adverse impact since the businesses will likely relocate within the City and continue paying taxes after they resettle. Tax-related impacts on the City would only result if the business cannot be relocated within the same jurisdiction or if the business ceases operation. No adverse effects to local or regional fiscal conditions or the community are anticipated.

Property values could be affected by displaced businesses, changes in the visual environment, improved access to community facilities (SARTC), other residential areas, and proposed community enhancement projects. Displacement of nonresidential properties could affect the property value of the remaining businesses because customers might be discouraged from visiting this area if it no longer offers several facilities to choose from. However, projects like this one that provide access improvements to community facilities and other residential areas could contribute to an increase in property value of both commercial and residential properties along Santa Ana Boulevard, Santiago Street, and some of the smaller local streets. The proposed project would decrease congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard and would also improve pedestrian circulation with the addition of the pedestrian bridges.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2776 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-27
Cumulative
The proposed project would not result in adverse effects on the regional economy, employment and income, business activity, or fiscal conditions. The proposed project would result in the displacement of business and employees; however, as mentioned earlier, there appears to be a sufficient supply of adequate sites to relocate all of the displacees within the immediate vicinity of the City. Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended.

Implementation of a TMP that informs the community and businesses about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction is expected to satisfactorily avoid and/or minimize potentially adverse effects on access to and from local businesses and employment.

The proposed project would provide access improvements to the study area and could contribute to the increase in property value of both commercial and residential properties along Santa Ana Boulevard, Santiago Street, and some of the small local streets. The proposed project would decrease congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard and would also improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety with the addition of the pedestrian bridges and the 42-foot corridor that is being reserved along the southerly portion of Santa Ana Boulevard for a future bikeway and the streetcar right-of-way. The project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on this resource area. The improvements made by the proposed project in conjunction with the other planned projects (SARTC Expansion, Garden Grove to Santa Ana Fixed Guideway, Depot at Santiago, and the Transit Zoning Code) would likely contribute to an increase in the study area’s property values on a cumulative basis.

3.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Measure RELOC-1 (refer to Section 3.4.3, Relocations) would ensure that relocation assistance benefits or entitlements would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended. Implementation of Measure TRF-1 (refer to Section 4.3), which includes implementation of a TMP that informs the community and businesses about project construction activities and maintains access to and from the project area during construction, is expected to satisfactorily avoid and/or minimize potentially adverse effects on access to and from local businesses and employment.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2777 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-28

3.3 Community Facilities and Services

3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.1.1 Community Facilities
Schools
There are ten schools within 0.5 mile of the study area (see Figure 6 and Table 17). Nine of these schools are public schools administered by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), which provides K-12 public school services in the project area. SAUSD is the sixth largest school district in California, and the largest in the County. There are approximately 56,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12th grade (SAUSD 2011). The schools that serve the study area are Garfield Elementary, Remington Elementary, Davis Elementary, Sierra Middle School, and Century High School. The location of these schools can be seen on Figure 6.

The capacity and the enrollment numbers for the schools serving the study area are given in Table 18. School enrollment for all schools in the District peaked in 2007 and has since experienced a measurable decline (City of Santa Ana 2010). SAUSD’s 10-year enrollment projection shows future enrollment as slightly declining or remaining essentially level (City of Santa Ana 2010). SAUSD contracts with Durham School Services to provide busing.

According to administrative personnel for the Durham School Services, approximately 20 buses traverse the Santa Ana Boulevard rail crossing every morning and afternoon during the school season.

Health Care
Health care services within 0.5 mile of the study area include the Phoenix House of Orange County, French Park Care Center, Planned Parenthood, and Santa Ana Outpatient Surgery Center (see Figure 6 and Table 17). The Phoenix House of Orange County, located at 1207 East Fruit Street, immediately adjacent to the project site, is a substance abuse treatment center that offers residential and outpatient programs. French Park Care Center is a 193 bed licensed skilled nursing facility located at 600 E. Washington Avenue; approximately 0.30 miles northwest of the project site (French Park Care Center 2012). Santa Ana Outpatient Surgery Center is located at 1450 E 17th Street and Planned Parenthood located 1421 E. 17th Street also provide medical and health care services to the study area.

Libraries
There are no libraries within 0.5 mile of the study area. The study area would be served by either the Santa Ana Main Public Library, located at 26 Civic Center Plaza or Newhope Library Learning Center located at 122 North Newhope Street, in the City of Santa Ana.

Alternative Transportation
The SARTC station covers 6.75 acres and contains a 47,000 square-foot terminal, two surface parking lots with a total of 282 spaces, and one four-story parking structure with 423 spaces.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2778 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-29
The terminal building is open from 5:00 AM to midnight daily. The parking structure is open to the public from 4:00 AM to midnight daily. SARTC is the focal point of transportation in Orange County and combines Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA, intercity and interstate bus transportation, and airport and taxi services all in one location (City of Santa Ana 2011a). The overall weekday foot traffic count for SARTC is estimated at 2,995 a day.

Bus transit services within and adjacent to the study area are provided by OCTA. Currently there are 32 bus routes operating in the City of Santa Ana. Of these bus routes, Routes 59, 83, 206, 462, 463, and 464 operate in and around the study area and provide busing to SARTC. All of these bus routes operate along Santa Ana Boulevard or within the project study area. OCTA Bus Lines also provide busing to the study area middle and high schools.

Table 17. Community Facilities
Facilities Location
Distance from Project
(miles) Map ID
Schools
James A. Garfield Elementary 850 Brown Street 0.19 5
Wallace R. Davis Elementary 1405 French Street 0.38 6
Albor Charter School 1125 E. 17th Street 0.29 7
Frederick Remington Elementary 1325 E. 4th Street 0.23 8 St Joseph Private School 727 North Minter Street 0.24 9 Raymond A. Villa Fundamental
Intermediate School
1441 East Chestnut Avenue 0.42 10
Sierra Middle School 2021 Grand Avenue 0.52 11
Century High School 1401 South Grand Avenue 1.25 12
Roosevelt Elementary School 501 Halladay Street 0.40 13 Adeline C. Walker Elementary School 811 E. Bishop Street 0.46 14 Healthcare
French Park Care Center (nursing
home)
600 E Washington Avenue 0.30 15
Phoenix House of Orange County
(substance abuse treatment center)
1207 East Fruit Street 0.01 16
Santa Ana Outpatient Surgery Center 1450 E 17th Street 0.43 17 Planned Parenthood 1421 E. 17th Street 0.44 18
Churches
Iglesia Vida Abundante 1202 E 17th Street 0.25 19
Lady of Guadalupe Church 1322 East 3rd Street 0.20 20
Libreria Cristiana Dios-Pactos 832 East 4th Street 0.19 21 Church of the Living Lord 416 North Lacy Street 0.23 22 Iglesia La Luz del Mundo 512 E Santa Ana Blvd 0.26 23
St Joseph Church 727 North Minter Street 0.24 24
Transit
Santa Ana Regional Transportation
Center
1000 East Santa Ana Blvd Immediately adjacent 25
EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2779 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-30
Table 18. Capacity and 2013 Enrollment of Schools
School Capacity Enrollment
James A. Garfield Elementary 784 686
Frederick Remington Elementary 523 349
Wallace R. Davis Elementary 654 749
Sierra Middle School 1,129 938
Century High School 2,454 1,997
Source: City of Santa Ana 2014.

Access and Parking
Within the City on-street parking is prohibited on principal, major, primary, and secondary arterials and is permitted on local streets unless specifically prohibited. On-street parking is located throughout the project area in neighboring streets and is utilized by residents and businesses in the surrounding area. No parking is allowed on Santiago Street west of the SARTC station or on Santa Ana Boulevard north of the SARTC station. A Park and Ride facility is located at the SARTC station for those who chose to carpool or use public transportation. Parking for travelers and visitors is free, up to 72 hours. There is generally sufficient pedestrian access throughout the study area with the exception of Poinsettia Street and 5th Street, which lack pedestrian sidewalks on portions of the street.

3.3.1.2 Emergency Services
Fire and Police Services
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire, emergency medical service, and hazardous materials services to the City. OCFA maintains a total of 10 fire stations, a fire administration building, and a fire training center to serve the residents of the City. Response to service calls is determined based upon proximity of available and appropriate fire personnel.

Fire Stations 1, 2, and 5 are responsible for responding to first alarm calls to the proposed project area. Fire Station 2 is the closest fire station, approximately 0.53 mile from the project site. The station is located at 1668 East 4th Street and is staffed by one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter. The second closest fire station is Fire Station 5, located approximately 0.75 mile from the site at 120 West Walnut Street, and it is staffed by two captains, two engineers, three firefighters, and two paramedics. Fire Station 1, approximately 1.29 miles from the project site, is located at 1322 North Sycamore Street and is staffed by two captains, two engineers, three fire fighters, and two paramedics. A hazardous materials team of one captain, one engineer, and one fire fighter are also located at this station. Additional OCFA stations would provide the necessary assistance, in cases where there is a need for back-up support. The location of the three stations can be seen in Figure 6 and Table 19.

Police services within the study area are provided by the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD).

The SAPD has a current staffing level of one chief of police, three deputy chiefs, 16 commanders, 54 sergeants, 320 sworn and 310 non-sworn personnel (City of Santa Ana 2010).

The City‘s officer-to-population ratio is currently 0.79 officers per 1,000 people which is considered acceptable by SAPD (City of Santa Ana 2010). The average response time throughout the City is approximately one to 6.1 minutes depending on priority of calls for service EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2780 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-31
(City of Santa Ana 2010). First response services to the proposed project area are provided by the Downtown sub-station located at 305 E. 4th Street #200 and the SAPD Main headquarters, located at 60 Civic Center Plaza. The locations are shown in Figure 6 and Table 19.

Table 19. Fire, Police, and Emergency Medical Services
Facilities Location Distance from Project (miles)
Map
ID
Fire
Fire Station #2 1668 East 4th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 0.53 26* Fire Station #5 120 West Walnut Santa Ana, CA 92701 0.75 27* Fire Station #1 1029 West 17th Street Santa Ana, CA
92706

1.29 28*
Police
SAPD Main
Headquarters
60 Civic Center Plaza 0.93 29*
Downtown Sub-Station 305 E. 4th Street, #200 0.45 30
Emergency Services
Western Medical Center 1001 North Tustin Avenue 1.00 31* *Community facilities are outside of the 0.5 mile study area, but are still shown on Figure 6 since they serve the project study area.

Emergency Medical Services
The nearest hospital to the study area is Western Medical Center located at 1001 North Tustin Avenue, approximately one mile east of the project site. It is considered an acute care hospital designated as a Level II trauma center, offering the following services: neurology, cardiology, trauma, emergency, burn services, and rehabilitative care (Western Medical Center 2012).

3.3.1.3 Utilities
Water Services
The domestic water service provider in the project area is the Water Resources Division of the City of Santa Public Works Agency. The City derives water from two main sources: the groundwater extracted from the Orange County Groundwater Basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The locations of the existing and proposed water lines that are within the limits of disturbance are listed in Table 20.

Table 20. Utilities within the Limits of Disturbance
Type of Utility Location
Water Line
12 inch existing water supply line Santa Ana Blvd - French Street to Fuller Street 6 inch existing water supply line Lincoln Ave, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 6 inch existing water supply line Santiago Street, north and south of Santa Ana Blvd. 4 inch existing water supply line Logan Street, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 10 inch proposed water supply line Immediately east of the Metrolink right-of-way, south of Santa Ana Blvd EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2781 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-32
Type of Utility Location
8 inch existing water supply line Fuller Street, south of Santa Ana Blvd 8 inch existing water supply line Fruit Street, east of the Metrolink right-of-way 10 inch proposed water supply line 6th Street, east of the Metrolink right-of-way 12 inch existing water supply line 4th Street, Poinsettia Street to Grand Wastewater
8 inch proposed sewage disposal line Immediately east of the Metrolink right-of-way, south of Santa Ana Blvd 6 inch existing sewage disposal line Lincoln Ave, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 6 inch existing sewage disposal line Logan Street, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 8 inch proposed sewage disposal line Logan Street, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 6 inch existing sewage disposal line Fuller Street, north of Santa Ana Blvd. 8 inch existing sewage disposal line Fuller Street, south of Santa Ana Blvd. 8 inch proposed sewage disposal line Santa Ana Blvd from Fuller St. to I-5 southbound ramp 18 inch existing sewage disposal line Fruit St., east and west of the Metrolink right-of-way 8 inch proposed sewage disposal line 6th Street, east of the Metrolink right-of-way 6 inch existing sewage disposal line 4th Street, Poinsettia St. to Grand Avenue Storm Drainage
36 inch proposed storm drain line Santa Ana Blvd, from French Street to Metrolink right-of-way 48 inch proposed storm drain line Santiago St., north of Santa Ana Blvd.

Source: City of Santa Ana 2010.

Wastewater
The Water Resources Division of the City’s Public Works Department handles wastewater collection within the City by maintaining 390 miles of local sewer lines, 7,630 manholes, and two lift stations. Waste from the City‘s wastewater collection system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which operates the third largest wastewater treatment system on the west coast, consisting of nearly 600 miles of trunk sewers and 200 miles of subtrunk sewers, two regional treatment plants, and an ocean disposal system (City of Santa Ana 2010).

The locations of the existing and proposed wastewater lines within the project’s limits of disturbance are listed in Table 21.

Solid Waste
The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD) operates the landfills within the County. The City contracts with OCIWMD to collect and dispose of the City’s solid waste. The solid waste is disposed of at Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in the Irvine and Olinda Alpha Landfill located in Brea (City of Santa Ana 2010). The Frank R.

Bowerman Landfill is a 725-acre landfill that opened in 1990 and is operating with a maximum daily permitting capacity of 8,500 tons per day and is expected to remain open until 2053 (City of Santa Ana 2010). The Olinda Alpha Landfill is situated on 565 acres, of which 420 acres are permitted for refuse disposal, with a daily maximum permitted disposal capacity of 8,000 tons (City of Santa Ana 2010).

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2782 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-33
Electricity
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the primary distribution provider for electricity in the study area. SCE maintains electrical facilities and infrastructure within the City and surrounding areas (City of Santa Ana 2010).

Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the study area.

SCGC maintains medium pressure facilities in nearly every street of the City and most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the study area are owned and operated by SCGC (City of Santa Ana 2010). The facilities found in the study area are medium pressure mains and are steel and plastic pipes primarily two to six inches in size (City of Santa Ana 2010).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3.2.1 Community Facilities
Short-term (Construction)
During the construction period, area residents and businesses near the construction zone may occasionally experience some inconvenience due to construction equipment, traffic lane closures, detours, or parking restrictions. During construction, motorists and pedestrians along Santa Ana Boulevard would experience some delays and detouring. Access to all businesses, community facilities, and residences within and adjacent to the study area would be maintained by way of alternative local streets as described in Section 4.2, Environmental Consequences, in Traffic and Transportation. During construction, traffic along Santa Ana Boulevard would be rerouted onto a temporary detour road and the roadway capacity would be decreased from six travel lanes to four travel lanes (refer to Section 4.2). The approved Traffic/Circulation Study (AECOM 2012) prepared for the proposed project concluded that there would be no traffic impacts on Santa Ana Boulevard between Santiago Street and I-5 during the construction period and that the alternative roadways surrounding the project area could accommodate a shift in traffic due to the construction activities along Santa Ana Boulevard.

Access to SARTC would continue to be provided using the temporary detour road and Santiago Street. Access to the Phoenix House would be provided along Fruit Street. Access to the Phoenix House is not available from Santa Ana Boulevard, as the facility is fenced off from Santa Ana Boulevard. Access to the schools, parks, and other community facilities adjacent to the study area would not be restricted. No temporary closure of any community service or facility would be required during construction. Implementation of a TMP (Measure TRF-1) as outlined in Section 4.3 would minimize impacts on the use of community services and facilities.

Long-term (Operations)
The proposed project involves safety improvements to an existing roadway. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population, and thus would not increase demand for EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2783 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-34
community services. No community facilities would be acquired or displaced and therefore, there would be no new demand for community facilities and services. The proposed project would not induce growth or increase population in the study area or the greater community.

Once constructed, the proposed project would not have an impact on existing services, with the exception that these improvements would enhance traffic operations, improve pedestrian and bicycle user safety, and reduce traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard with the removal of the existing at-grade conflict.

3.3.2.2 Emergency Services
Short-term (Construction)
Construction activities could have the potential to result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions in the proposed project area involving partial and/or complete street and lane closures and detours. This could lead to an increase in delay times for emergency response vehicles during construction. As mentioned previously, the approved Traffic/Circulation Study (AECOM 2012) concluded that there would be no traffic impacts on Santa Ana Boulevard between Santiago Street and I-5 during the construction period as a result of the proposed detour road, and that the alternative roadways surrounding the project area could accommodate a shift in traffic due to the construction activities along Santa Ana Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on response times for fire, police, and emergency service providers. Refer to Section 4.2, Environmental Consequences, in Traffic and Transportation for additional information on detours and traffic closures.

These detours and traffic lane closures would be included in the TMP that is prepared (see measure TRF-1 in Section 4.2) and coordinated with a public information program during construction. The Traffic Management Plan would be prepared and coordinated with emergency services providers. In addition, a public information program would be coordinated with emergency service providers during construction. The TMP would be a public awareness program through the use of the local media, newsletters, and flyers.

Long-term (Operations)
The proposed project involves safety improvements to an existing transportation facility. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population, and thus would not increase demand for emergency services. The proposed project would not induce growth or increase population in the study area or the greater community. Once constructed, the proposed project would provide a safer railroad crossing, better local circulation, and improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing the pedestrian bridge crossing, and through-traffic safety would be expected to improve. The proposed project would improve emergency response times and reduce traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2784 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-35

3.3.2.3 Utilities
Short-term (Construction)
Table 21 describes the utilities that are anticipated to be affected by the proposed project.

Utilities that would be relocated due to construction would be relocated in the same general area and within the identified limits of disturbance, pursuant to the utility provider’s and City’s requirements. Depending on the level of effects, these facilities would need to be protected, adjusted/modified, or relocated. The affected utilities would be relocated in accordance with State laws and regulations and city policies. There would be ongoing coordination between the City, affected agencies, and utility companies in order to minimize potential disruption of utility service to the community and businesses (see Measure UT-1); therefore, no adverse effects would occur.

Table 21. Utilities within the Limits of Disturbance
Type of Utility Location and anticipated impacts
City of Santa Ana Water
12 inch existing water supply line The line runs along the existing Santa Ana Blvd. between Santiago St. and Fuller St. The line would be relocated along the north side of the existing Santa Ana Blvd. outside the excavation area.
eight inch existing water supply
line
The line runs along the Fuller St. south of Santa Ana Blvd. and connects to the 20-inch waterline near the Santa Ana Blvd./Fuller St. intersection. The line would be lowered below the proposed grade or relocated outside the excavation limits
City of Santa Ana Sewer
Three 6 inch sewer lines The three lines flow southerly along Fuller St, Lincoln Ave. and Logan St. and tie in the sewer mainline, which drains westerly along Fruit St. The three sewer lines north of the proposed underpass would be reconnected to a proposed sewer line running along the north side of Santa Ana Blvd. and would drain toward an existing sewer line system near the intersection of Santa Ana Blvd. and Santiago St. The three sewer lines south of the proposed underpass would be abandoned in place.

SCE Power
66 kV underground duct bank The underground duct bank is located along north side of the existing Santa Ana Blvd. and it turns southerly along the Fruit St. The portion of the duct along the Santa Ana Blvd. would not be impacted by the project as the proposed underpass is shifted southerly to provide a 20' wide utility corridor. The reminder portion of the duct that is across the proposed underpass and along the Fruit St. would be lowered below the proposed grade or relocated outside the excavation limits
12 kV underground duct bank The underground duct bank is located along the south side of the existing Santa Ana Blvd. and would be relocated outside the proposed underpass footprint.

Power poles and aerial cables Power poles and aerial cables are located along Fuller St. and along the north side of Santa Ana Blvd. between Fuller St. and I-5 off ramp. The impacted poles and aerial cables would be relocated outside the construction area.

Metrolink
Telecommunication line and
signal cables
Would be lowered below the proposed grade.

SCGC
2-inch gas line Lines near the west end of the project would be relocated outside the construction footprint
4-inch gas drain line Lines near the west end of the project would be relocated outside the EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2785 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-36
Type of Utility Location and anticipated impacts
construction footprint.

Source: AECOM 2014.

Long-term (Operations)
No long-term impacts on utilities are anticipated since the proposed project is a roadway improvement project and there would be no impacts on utility demand over the long term.

Cumulative
Construction activities of one or more projects at the same time in the project area could result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions, including partial and/or complete street and lane closures and detours. This could lead to an increase in delay times for emergency response vehicles during construction. The potential for disruption or obstruction of emergency services access in the project area to occur as a result of construction activities would be avoided with Measure TRF-1, the preparation of a TMP that takes into consideration other projects in the project area. The TMP would include provisions to notify the local emergency providers and any potentially affected residents at least two weeks in advance of any planned street closures (including partial and/or full closures) or traffic diversions. Cumulative effects from construction, if they occur, would be minor and temporary. Therefore, the proposed project, when combined with other projects, would not result in substantial cumulative effects under NEPA related to emergency public services.

Construction activities of one or more projects at the same time in the project area could result in temporary, localized, site-specific disruptions to utilities. The affected utilities would be relocated in accordance with state law and regulations and City policies. There would be ongoing coordination between Caltrans and the City of Santa Ana, affected agencies, and utility companies to minimize potential disruption of utility service. Therefore, the proposed project, when combined with other projects, would not result in substantial cumulative effects under NEPA related to utilities.

3.3.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
As mentioned previously, utility relocations would be required during the construction period.

The affected utilities would be relocated in accordance with State laws and regulations and City policies. In addition, the following minimization measure would be implemented to ensure impacts on the community and neighboring businesses are minimized:

UT-1: The City will coordinate all utility relocation work with the affected utility companies to ensure minimum disruption to customers in the service areas during construction.

As mentioned previously, construction activities could result in temporary, localized, sitespecific disruptions, including partial and/or complete street and lane closures and detours, which could lead to an increase in delay times for emergency response vehicles during construction.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2786 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-37
The potential for disruption or obstruction of emergency services access in the project area to occur as a result of construction activities would be avoided with Measure TRF-1 identified in Section 4.3. No long-term adverse impacts are anticipated; therefore, no additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are needed.

3.4 Relocations

3.4.1 Affected Environment
The displacement area contains commercial, light industrial, institutional, and transportation uses. The project site is currently a roadway with an at-grade railroad crossing. Immediately to the east of the existing railroad right-of-way, there are industrial parcels which house a number of businesses, whose services appear to include video production, plastic manufacturing, automotive parts manufacturing, clothing sales and manufacturing, funeral services, geotechnical drilling, auto wrecking and salvage, and concrete product casting. In addition, three County of Orange facilities exist immediately to the east of the project site and serve primarily as vehicle storage and maintenance facilities. Refer to Section 2.1.1, Existing and Future Land Uses, for a description of the existing study area.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.1 Short-Term (Construction)
During construction, TCEs would be required for the proposed project and are shown on Table 2 and Figure 3. New right-of-way, including both permanent acquisition and TCEs, would be required for the construction of the temporary two-track shoofly railroad alignment. A TCE would also be needed on APNs 398-092-12, 398-092-13, 398-092-14, and 398-092-15 in order to construct a temporary detour road. As mentioned previously, no relocations would be needed since these lots are currently undeveloped, belong to the State of California, County of Orange, and City of Santa Ana, and are not used by the neighboring community. No relocation impacts are anticipated as a result of these TCEs.

A TCE would not be required on the SARTC parking lot for the detour road since this parking lot is owned by the City. No relocations of businesses or residences would be required as a result of construction of the detour road, but there would be a temporary loss of parking at SARTC; however, as discussed in Section 4.2, there is additional parking available in the SARTC parking structure. Therefore, no impacts on the community from the loss of parking are anticipated.

A TCE on the grounds of the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center (APN 398-101-15) would be required in order to accommodate the proposed detour road. This TCE would affect a small portion of the existing baseball diamond at the Phoenix House Rehabilitation Center that encroaches within the existing Santa Ana Boulevard right-of-way. There is sufficient space to reconfigure the baseball field once construction is complete. This business would continue to be EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2787 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-38
open and operating throughout construction, since access to the facility would not be affected.

No relocations are anticipated as a result of this TCE.

The TCE at the County’s Public Works Construction and Facilities Operations Yard (APN 398- 101-16) would have no impact on the neighboring community, since this facility is not a business that is open to the public. The TCE would result in the loss of some parking spaces for County employees who work at this facility but is not expected to affect operations of the facility, since additional parking is available at the adjacent County-owned parcels and on Fuller Street. No relocations are anticipated as a result of this TCE.

The community would be able to access the business from neighboring streets, since no road closures or detours would occur that would affect access or business operations. No relocations are anticipated as a result of this TCE.

3.4.2.2 Long-Term (Operation)
Up to eight nonresidential properties (on 11 parcels) would be displaced by the project and would need to be fully acquired, and an additional two parcels would be affected by partial acquisitions or sliver takes (refer to Table 3). These partial acquisition properties currently house private businesses (APN 398-101-15) and government facilities (APN 398-101-16) according to a January 2012 field survey and a property records search. The displaced businesses provide a variety of services and products such as automotive brake parts, textile manufacturing, video production, crematory, office supply distribution, geotechnical drilling, and engineering (refer to Table 16). Current real estate market data indicate that there are similar types of businesses within a five-mile radius of the project site. As mentioned previously, the displaced businesses are not considered to be specialized businesses, and consumers can find similar products or services at alternative stores and businesses nearby. Relocation of these businesses would not cause substantial impacts on the neighborhood and the community.

There is one business that appears to be minority-owned based on the name of the businesses observed during the visual survey and the tenant information in property records. Additional businesses may be minority-owned, but the information available was not sufficient to make this determination. Once the proposed project is finalized, a detailed interview will take place with the business owners during the right-of-way acquisition phase to obtain relevant information about their businesses.

According to the RIM (Appendix A) that was prepared for the project, there appears to be a sufficient supply of adequate sites to relocate all of the displacees within, or within the immediate vicinity of, the City of Santa Ana. This is based on real estate listings and the professional opinion of two local commercial real estate agents. An expanded relocation area may be required when searching for a small number of businesses with specialized requirements, including larger sites and those with specialized uses, such as the automobile salvage yard.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2788 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-39
Relocation assistance benefits or entitlements (refer to Appendix C) would be provided to displacees in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended. Further analysis of acquisition and displacement is provided in the RIM (included as Appendix A).

3.4.2.3 Cumulative
With the minimization measures identified below, the proposed project would have no adverse effects on relocation; therefore, the project would not contribute either directly or indirectly to a cumulatively considerable impact on this resource area.

3.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
The following is a standard condition for all projects that displace uses and would reduce relocation impacts:

RELOC-1: In accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Act of 1970 as amended (42 USC Secs. 4601-4655), provide compensation to eligible recipients for property acquisitions.

3.5 Environmental Justice
This project has been developed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Title VI states that “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency (or its designee) to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse” effects of federal or federally funded projects on minority and low-income populations.

3.5.1 Affected Environment
To determine the income and poverty characteristics for the population and housing study area, data were obtained from the 2012 U.S. Census at the census tract level located adjacent to the project site. This data indicate that per capita income for the population and housing study area population ($13,931) is lower than that of the City’s per capita income ($16,330), and the County’s per capita income ($34,233) 8
.

The data on persons below the poverty threshold in the population and housing study area indicate that on average, the proportion of people below the poverty threshold is 27.7 percent,

8 2010 US Census Per Capita Income and Poverty Level data not available at the block group level time of preparation of this report.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2789 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-40
which is higher than both the County of Orange (11.7 percent) and the City of Santa Ana (20.7 percent). (Note: The 2012 poverty threshold according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is $11,170 for individuals, or $23,050 for a family of four). See Table 22, Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Income/Poverty (2012).

Table 22. Existing Regional and Local Population Characteristics – Income/Poverty (2012)1 Area
Total
Population
Per Capita
Income ($)
Percentage of Persons At
or Below Poverty Threshold
Orange County 3,021,840 $34,233 11.7%
City of Santa Ana 326,608 $16,330 20.7%
Census Tract 744.05 6,080 $11,871 36.0%
Census Tract 744.06 3,343 $15,991 19.4%
Study Area 9,423 $13,931 27.7%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months and Selected Economic Characteristics .

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. This Executive Order directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.

Low income is defined based on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. The 1999 poverty threshold used for the 2000 U.S. data, as defined by the U.S.

Census Bureau, was $8,501 for an individual and $17,029 for a family of four. The 2012 poverty threshold according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is $11,170 for individuals or $23,050 for a family of four.

The term “minority” includes persons who identify themselves as Black/African-American, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Native Alaskan, or of Hispanic/Latino origin. As mentioned above, the term “low-income” includes persons whose household income is at or below the HHS poverty guidelines. A different threshold (e.g., U.S.

Census Bureau poverty threshold) may be utilized as long as it is not selectively implemented and is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines.

The discussion of environmental justice that follows has been prepared in accordance with the applicable guidance for addressing environmental justice, including: U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.2 (April 15, 1997), FHWA Order 6640.23 (December 2, 1998), the FHWA Western Resource Center Interim Guidance (March 2, 1999), the FHWA California Division Environmental Justice Environmental Documents Checklist, and the Department Desk Guide – Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments (January 2003).

Consistent with this guidance, the environmental justice analysis for the proposed project describes: (1) the existing study area population and the presence of minority and low-income EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2790 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-41
population groups in the study area; (2) potential adverse effects and measures to avoid or minimize those effects for all study area population groups, including minority and low-income population groups; (3) potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome population groups; and (4) community outreach and public involvement efforts.

3.5.2.1 Existing Population
The 2010 percentage of minority populations in the population and housing study area of 48.6 percent is larger than the County percentage of 39.2 percent and City percentage of 54.1 percent.

The proportion of persons below the poverty threshold in the study area (30.6 percent) is also higher than the City (19.3 percent) and County (10.2 percent). Other indicators of a disadvantaged community (e.g., more renter-occupied housing and greater housing density as measured by persons per household) also appear in the data. Of the 2010 occupied housing units in the study area, 22 percent were owner-occupied, while 78 percent were renter occupied, which is much higher than the County and City. The 2010 average household size for the study area (4.4) was also higher than the City (4.4 persons per household) and County (3.0 persons per household). These indicators identify a disadvantaged community; therefore, the presence of low-income and minority populations in the study area warrants an environmental justice analysis to determine if any adverse effects to a low-income or minority group would be borne disproportionately.

3.5.2.2 Adverse Effects on Overall Population
Technical studies have been conducted in order to determine whether the proposed project would have any adverse effects on all segments of the general population, including minority and lowincome population groups. The technical studies addressing noise, air quality, visual resources, and hazardous materials/waste indicate that some potential adverse effects are expected as a result of the proposed project. The impacts identified in these technical reports and the measures to avoid or reduce them can be summarized as follows:

3.5.2.3 Noise
The Draft Noise Study Report (NSR) (ICF International 2013) found that six of the 16 modeled receivers (representative of six residences or noise-sensitive receptors) would approach or exceed the Federal Highway Administration FHWA/Department Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for Activity Category B and C land uses with construction of the project.

Pursuant to Department and FHWA regulations and guidance, noise abatement is considered for land uses that are found to approach or exceed the NAC for existing, future no build, and build condition noise levels. For noise-sensitive receivers that were found to have traffic noise levels that approach or exceed the NAC, noise abatement in the form of soundwalls was considered.

Two soundwalls (NB-1 and NB-2) were found to be acoustically feasible, and reasonable allowances were calculated. The reasonable allowances for each of the barriers were compared with the estimated costs to construct, provided by the project engineer. For barrier NB-1, the estimated cost to construct would exceed the reasonable allowance. Barrier NB-2 was estimated to cost between $147,600 and $196,800 versus a reasonable allowance of $220,000. Therefore, EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2791 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-42
NB-2 was determined to be reasonable to construct at heights of 12 to 16 feet. This is the preliminary reasonableness determination.

During construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction.

Conventional construction equipment is expected to generate maximum noise levels ranging from 75 to 99 decibels (dB) at a distance of 50 feet, while noise from pile driving, if necessary, would generate maximum noise levels of approximately 101 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Noise produced by construction equipment would diminish over distance at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance.

The closest residences to the project site are within 50 feet of the project construction areas.

Therefore, these residences may be subject to short-term noise reaching a 95-dBA maximum sound level (Lmax) or higher generated by project construction activities. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code, Noise Control Section 18- 314, would be required (refer to Section 3.1.2 of this report). To minimize construction noise impacts on sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site, construction noise is regulated by Caltrans Standard Specifications in Section 14-8.02, “Noise Control,” and also by Standard Special Provision S5-310, “Noise Control.” Noise control will conform to the provisions in Section 14-8.02 and Standard Special Provision S5-310. The noise level from the contractor’s operations between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. will not exceed 86 dBA Leq (h) at a distance of 50 feet. This requirement in no way relieves the contractor from responsibility for complying with local ordinances regulating noise levels. The contractor should use an alternative warning method instead of a sound signal unless required by safety laws.

In addition, the contractor will equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturerrecommended mufflers and will not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate muffler.

3.5.2.4 Air Quality
An Air Quality Assessment Report (ICF International 2012a) was prepared for the project and was used to prepare the following section:

Construction activities can result in a source of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions that can have substantial temporary impacts on local air quality (i.e., exceed state air quality standards for PM2.5 and PM10). Such emissions would result from earthmoving and use of heavy equipment, as well as land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill operations, and the construction of roadways. Dust emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A major portion of dust emissions for the proposed project would likely be caused by construction traffic on temporary construction roads.

While construction activities would contribute to an increase of criteria pollutant emissions, such emissions would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities.

Experience has shown that several feasible control measures can be reasonably implemented to reduce exhaust and fugitive PM2.5 and PM10 emissions during construction. Therefore, the EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2792 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-43
proposed project would have no negative short-term, construction impacts on localized or regional air quality.

The project would conform to Caltrans’ construction requirements, as specified in Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, Section 7 1.01F (Air Pollution Control): “The Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract, including any air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes, specified in Section 11017 of the Government Code.” SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires that fugitive dust control measures be applied to all construction projects in the SCAB, unless said project is specifically exempted by the rule.

Construction projects that are classified as “large operations” (i.e., 20 hectares [50 acres] or larger) are required to submit a fully executed Large Operation Notification Form (Form 403 N) to the Executive Office of the SCAQMD within seven days of qualifying as a large operation and to maintain daily records to document the specific control actions taken. The control measures incorporated in the Rule are available in a Rule 403 Implementation Handbook. The proposed project, although not a large operation under the Rule’s definition would be required to implement measures for each source of PM10 emissions, as specified in the Rule that is included in Appendix A of the Air Quality Report prepared for the proposed project.

The implementation of exhaust and fugitive dust emission control measures identified above would avoid and/or minimize any impacts on air quality.

3.5.2.5 Hazardous Materials/Wastes
Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ISA) Report prepared for the proposed project in September 2011 (AECOM 2011), there is the potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction and demolitions activities. The acquisition parcels include industrial buildings, an auto wrecking yard, and a County of Orange vehicle and road maintenance facility. Current sites of environmental concern include a gas station (closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank site) at the County’s road maintenance facility, the auto wrecking yard, other parts of the County facility, and various industrial buildings. No interior inspections of the buildings were conducted. The age of the buildings indicate a high potential for the presence of asbestos containing building materials (ACBMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and other infrastructure-related hazardous materials such polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical or mechanical equipment, and mercury switches.

Based on the site reconnaissance, no evidence of hazardous substance was observed within, or adjacent to, the project right-of-way, no underground storage tanks (USTs) or above ground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed within the project right-of-way, no potential PCB containing equipment (e.g., electrical transformers) was observed on, or adjacent to, the right-of-way, and no ACBMs were directly observed within the existing project right-of-way. Soils adjacent to paved areas within the project corridor may contain aerially deposited lead (ADL) from vehicle exhaust. Lead and other heavy metals, such as chromium, may be present within yellow thermoplastic paint markings on the pavement. The ISA recommended the following investigation and mitigation measures for the study area, and specifically for the proposed acquisition parcels/structures:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2793 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-44
• An ISA should be conducted on the individual parcels or area, including at a minimum the ISA on the area along Fuller Street north of Fruit Street, the County maintenance facility, the auto wrecking yard, and the industrial buildings at the south end of the acquisition area, south of Sixth Street.
• A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be conducted on the project site as a whole, or a series of several focused Phase II ESAs to include at a minimum the gas station, the former petroleum product storage facilities, other County maintenance buildings, the former chemical plant (soil has survey recommended) and the auto wrecking yard. Other areas of investigation may be indicated by the Phase I assessments. • Removal of three closed-in-place USTs at the former chemical plant should be considered.
• Comprehensive surveys of the existing buildings should be performed before any demolition of the existing buildings.
• Prior to construction of the sound wall, ADL surveys and testing should be conducted to comply with special handling, treatment, and/or disposal of ADL material. • Prior to the removal of yellow thermoplastic paint markings on the pavement, these surfacing materials should be tested for LBP. If LBP is found, it should be removed from on site, hauled to a licensed receiving facility, and disposed of by a transportation company certified to handle materials containing LBP. Following completion of the LBP removal, a report documenting the abatement procedures used, the volume of LBP removed, and where the materials were deposited, along with transportation/disposal manifests or dump tickets, shall be submitted to the City. • Any transformers to be relocated during site construction/demolitions should be conducted under the purview of the local utility purveyor to identify proper handling procedures regarding potential PCBs. The contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures, which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law.

As a follow up to the recommendations in the ISA prepared in September 2011, three additional investigations were conducted and the results are summarized below:

The subject site for the current ISA South Area (AECOM 2013a) includes an auto wrecking yard and two light-industrial or warehouse buildings north of 4th Street and south of the County of Orange Fruit Street Shops facility, which was the subject of a previous ISA by AECOM dated February 22, 2013. The following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified: likely presence of surface releases of waste oil and other hydrocarbons; possible soil impacts by lead, cadmium, and corrosive chemicals; 5,500 gallon UST probably used to store resins for phonograph record manufacturing; and hazardous waste generation and presumed hazardous materials usage at J&H Drilling. The following measures were recommended for the Final Design Phase of the project:

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2794 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-45
• It is our understanding that the City of Santa Ana deems subsurface investigations to be unnecessary on Temporary Construction Easement parcels. However, in view of the former usage of Parcel T-9 for battery manufacturing and the current presence of an automotive junkyard on the site, we recommend that soil sampling for lead, cadmium, and petroleum hydrocarbons be considered if any ground disturbance is contemplated in order to ensure worker and public safety during construction. • The hazardous waste storage area and possible waste oil tank at J&H Drilling should be inspected for possible releases of waste oil or other environmental concerns.

The subject site for the ISA North Area (AECOM 2013b) includes several industrial buildings on Fuller Street, north of Fruit Street, and an area of County-owned land east of Fruit Street and west of I-5. The study area includes eight parcels of land to be acquired and four parcels for which TCEs are proposed. The following RECs were identified: soils impacted by arsenic and other heavy metals; secondary containment area possibly used for chemical tanks and a possible drum storage area at the former Jasco Chemical facility; and numerous former manufacturing facilities, machine shops, and auto repair facilities in the industrial building along Fuller Street.

Though not rising to the level of a REC, these former usages indicate the possibility of substantial historical usage of hazardous materials at various locations in the study area. The following measures were recommended:
• Perform Phase II ESA during final design of the project for the following areas:
– Parcel A-1 (1024 Fuller), current auto repair shop, sampling if indicated (interior inspection required);
– Parcel A-2 (1022 Fuller), former machine shop with degreaser, auto wrecking company and auto repair shop;
– Parcel A-4 (1020 Fuller), former paint manufacturer, former auto body shop, former metals recovery facility;
– Parcel A-5 (1016 Fuller), former machine shop; and
– Parcel A-6 (1012 Fuller), former paint spray booth, former paint manufacturer (Jasco Chemical).

The Phase II ESA would include soil sampling for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and/or those chemicals formerly stored on site by Jasco Chemical, as appropriate for each individual location.
• Perform a comprehensive survey for ACBMs, LBP, PCBs and mercury switches during the final design phase at the buildings proposed for acquisition.

A Phase II ESA was performed for the County of Orange Fruit Street Shops at 1111 and 1143 E.

Fruit Street (AECOM 2013c). The purpose of the Phase II ESA was to investigate possible environmental impairment to the project site (acquisition parcels) associated with the former fuel storage facility, surface stains, or hazardous materials storage area. The investigation included soil and soil gas sampling in the two general areas and analysis of samples for volatile organic compounds and petroleum compounds. The investigation did not indicate the presence of EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2795 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-46
significant soil contaminations in the area of investigation. Soils that appear to require remediation during development of the proposed project were not identified.

3.5.2.6 Visual Quality
According to the Visual Impact Assessment (ICF International 2012b) prepared for the proposed project, the project’s grade separation features are essentially at or below existing grade levels and they would not insert a substantial mid-frame visual element into either east or west-facing views along Santa Ana Boulevard. As motorist or pedestrians enter the underpass while travelling eastward on Santa Ana Boulevard, they would experience only the briefest interruptions in views of the Lomas Ridge and the more distant Santa Ana Mountains ridgelines.

Hence, no substantial changes to key views would occur. Residential viewers also would continue to have key east-facing views of the mountain ridgelines available to them.

The loss of a number of mature trees would reduce visual quality in the short-term and mediumterm only (i.e., up to nine years). However, as stated above, once the SARTC Master Plan and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway projects are completed new comparable permanent landscaping would be installed within the project corridor in a manner that is consistent with City of Santa Ana General Plan-related design policies, SARTC and Santa Ana-Garden Grove Fixed Guideway master plans, and that is appropriate to the designation of SARTC as a locallydefined visual focal point or “landmark.” As a consequence, effects under NEPA upon visual resources and upon long-term visual quality are not considered substantially adverse.

3.5.2.7 Traffic/Circulation Study
The approved Traffic/Circulation Study (AECOM 2012) prepared for the proposed project concluded that there would be no traffic impacts on Santa Ana Boulevard between Santiago Street and I-5 during the construction period and that the alternative roadways surrounding the project area could accommodate a shift in traffic due to the construction activities along Santa Ana Boulevard.

All study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable level of service under Opening Year (2016) or Future Year (2035) conditions with addition of the project with the exception of:
• Fuller Street/Santa Ana Boulevard: Continue to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours
However, this location would operate at LOS F without the project; as such, the additional delay (less than the one percent threshold of significance) with the project would not constitute a substantial adverse impact. This location does not meet the signal warrant criteria under Opening Year (2016) or Future Year (2035) conditions. Since the project would not add any traffic to the minor street approach (Fuller Street), a traffic signal would still not be warranted under Opening Year (2016) or Future Year (2035) plus project conditions.

Access to the SARTC train station and the Fuller Street-Fruit Street/Santa Ana Boulevard intersection would not be affected by the addition of the project under the Opening Year (2016) or Future Year (2035) conditions.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2796 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-47
The proposed project would provide a net benefit by reducing the congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard caused by daily OCTA Metrolink train crossings by removing the existing at-grade conflict between vehicular traffic and rail traffic. Traffic diversions due to the termination of Logan Street north of Santa Ana Boulevard would not cause an appreciable delay at any of the study area intersections.

3.5.2.8 Potential Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects The determination of whether or not the effects of the proposed project are disproportionately high and adverse depends on whether (1) the effects of the project are predominantly borne by a minority or low-income population or (2) the effects of the project are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude to minority or low-income populations compared to the effects on nonminority or non-low-income populations (see FHWA Western Resource Center Interim Guidance – Addressing Environmental Justice in the EA/EIS [1999]). This community could be considered disadvantaged.

The study area does have a substantial proportion of low-income or minority populations and the larger community in general would be similarly affected. Construction impacts, including noise and fugitive dust from construction activities and short-term traffic detours and closures requiring alternative traffic routing, could have greater effects on minority or low-income populations living and working in the study area when compared to the surrounding population, since they would experience these impacts on a daily basis during the 18-month construction period. The Air Quality Report includes standard measures (Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2) for dust control during construction as stipulated by SCAQMD’s Rule 403, and the Noise Study Report includes standard avoidance measures (Measures N-1 to N-3) that would be implemented to reduce construction and operation noise. Community disruption as a result of construction activities would be addressed through various management strategies that will be identified in the TMP (Measure TRF-1). It should be noted that Santa Ana Boulevard is an important roadway in the local and regional transportation system. Local motorists from the immediate project area, trains traveling on the railroad tracks, and those traveling to and from the project area from elsewhere would also be inconvenienced by traffic delays and other disruptions during the project construction period.

Displacement of businesses would have some local effects upon the community; however, the proposed project requires relatively few displacements and it was determined in the RIM that adequate relocation resources would be available to displaced parties within the vicinity of the study area. Since these establishments are not specifically served by low-income or minority populations, impacts due to the relocation of these businesses would not be substantial to these populations. Properties selected for displacement and relocation are selected based upon the right-of-way requirements typically involved with constructing a grade-separated rail crossing.

Therefore, the adverse effect of property displacements would not be borne by a specific population (i.e., low-income or minority populations) and would not be disproportionately high when compared to similar types of grade-separation projects.

The potential adverse effects resulting from the proposed project would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on a minority or low-income population. As noted above, all the potential adverse effects identified in the technical studies could be satisfactorily avoided or EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2797 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-48
minimized through the implementation of recommended measures. Because there has been no evidence to suggest that the efficacy of these measures would differ with respect to different population groups, the net result would be the same for all population groups for these resource areas.

The proposed project would benefit the community, including the minority or low-income populations found in the study area, and larger City by enhancing traffic operations along Santa Ana Boulevard; improving pedestrian and bicycle user safety; improving emergency response times; and reducing existing traffic congestion along Santa Ana Boulevard. Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts on the Logan neighborhood and to improve community cohesion by reducing traffic delays on Santa Ana Boulevard. The project also would improve connectivity of the Logan neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC with the addition of the pedestrian bridges. The proposed project takes into account the needs of the transit-dependent, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the study area by providing two new pedestrian bridges and reserving a 42-foot corridor along the southerly portion of Santa Ana Boulevard for a future bikeway and the streetcar right-of-way. As detailed more fully in Section 6.0, public involvement and community outreach efforts would be undertaken to ensure that issues of concern or controversy to minority and low-income populations are identified and addressed.

3.5.2.9 Efficacy of Mitigation Efforts – Unavoidable Adverse Effects Technical studies conducted thus far have not identified any adverse effects that would occur, taking into account the implementation of recommended avoidance and minimization measures.

3.5.2.10 Other Measures to Minimize Adverse Effects
As part of the project planning and development process, efforts will be taken to avoid or minimize impacts on the city services, surrounding community and sensitive environment that could result from the grade separation project.

3.5.2.11 Project Benefits
Implementation of the proposed project would have benefits to the community. Residents, businesses, and visitors would be afforded a safer pedestrian environment with reduced conflicts between rail, motor vehicular, and pedestrian traffic. Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts on the Logan neighborhood and community cohesion by reducing traffic delays on Santa Ana Boulevard, and would improve connectivity of the Logan neighborhood west of the railroad and potential mixed-use developments east of the railroad bridge with SARTC with the addition of the pedestrian bridges. The proposed project takes into account the needs of the transit-dependent, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the study area by providing two new pedestrian bridges and reserving a 42-foot corridor along the southerly portion of Santa Ana Boulevard for a future bikeway and the streetcar right-of-way. In addition, the project would result in the removal of some industrial land uses that are in close proximity to residences in the Logan Neighborhood. As previously mentioned in this report, two areas of concern previously identified by this neighborhood were 1) safety –pedestrian and public safety EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2798 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-49
and 2) environmental health, harmful industrial businesses in their neighborhood. Therefore, this project would help address these two areas of concern.

3.5.2.12 Community Outreach and Public Involvement
As mentioned previously, a public information meeting was held on December 18, 2013 from 6:00 to 8:30 PM at SARTC at 1000 East Santa Ana Boulevard, in the City of Santa Ana. The meeting allowed the public to learn more about the proposed project, discuss the proposed project design, review the technical studies prepared for the project, and discuss how the proposed project may affect them or their property. A presentation was made that included an overview of the project, the proposed project schedule and status, potential right-of-way impacts, and environmental studies completed to date and ended with a “Question and Answer” session.

Following the presentation, project team members met with the public and answered any additional questions raised by the public. The presentation and all meeting handouts were available in Spanish. A Spanish translator was also present at the meeting. The proposed project would also comply with applicable federal requirements promulgated in accordance with Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), which requires that federal programs and activities be accessible to persons with limited English language proficiency.

The proposed project will be developed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. In addition, the project would be developed in conformity with related statutes and regulations mandating that no person in the State of California shall, on grounds of race, color, sex, age, national origin, or disabling condition, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity administered by or on the behalf of Caltrans.

3.5.2.13 Environmental Justice Determination
Based on the above discussion and analysis, the proposed project would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations as per Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice.

3.5.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
Based on the above discussion and analysis, the proposed project would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations as per Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice. The potential adverse effects resulting from the proposed project would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude on a minority or low-income population. The Air Quality Report also includes standard measures (Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2) for dust control during construction as stipulated by SCAQMD’s Rule 403, and the Noise Study Report includes standard avoidance measures (Measures N 1 to N-3) that would be implemented to reduce construction and operation noise. Community traffic EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2799 5/5/2026
Chapter 3. Community Character
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
3-50
disruption during project construction as a result of construction activities would be addressed through various management strategies that will be identified in the TMP (Measure TRF-1). As noted above, all the potential adverse effects identified in the technical studies could be satisfactorily avoided or minimized through the implementation of the recommended measures identified above. Because there has been no evidence to suggest that the efficacy of these measures would differ with respect to different population groups, the net result would be the same for all population groups for these resource areas.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2800 5/5/2026
Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
4-1
Chapter 4 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities

4.1 Affected Environment

4.1.1 Caltrans Facilities and the Local Street System
The following information has been summarized from the Final Traffic Circulation Study that was prepared for the proposed project (AECOM 2012).

4.1.1.1 Study Area
The analysis focuses on locations that could be directly affected by the reconfiguration of Santa Ana Boulevard and the closure of Logan Street as a result of the proposed project (either geometrically or with changed traffic levels). Therefore, the following locations were selected in consultation with City staff for analysis:

1. Santiago Street/Civic Center Drive;

2. Santiago Street/Santa Ana Boulevard;

3. Logan Street/Santa Ana Boulevard;

4. SARTC Driveway/Santa Ana Boulevard;

5. Fuller Street-Fruit Street/Santa Ana Boulevard;

6. I-5 Southbound Ramps/Santa Ana Boulevard; and

7. Grand Avenue/Santa Ana Boulevard.

4.1.1.2 Existing Roadway System
The discussion presented here focuses on roadways that are approaches to the study intersections or roadways that are directly affected by the proposed project. Key roadway facilities within the project study area are described below.

Santa Ana Boulevard: Santa Ana Boulevard is an east-west road classified by the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element (Circulation Element) as a Primary Arterial east of Santiago Street to I-5. The segment between Santiago Street and I-5 currently provides six lanes (three travel lanes in each direction). Parking is prohibited along this segment, and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).

Santiago Street: Santiago Street is a north-south two-lane divided roadway south of Washington Avenue. It is classified as a Secondary Arterial per the City’s Circulation Element. On-street EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2801 5/5/2026
Chapter 4. Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
4-2
parking is generally allowed on Santiago Street north and south of Santa Ana Boulevard. The speed limit is 25 mph. Santiago Street becomes Penn Way north of Washington Avenue up to 17th Street.

Civic Center Drive: Civic Center Drive is a four-lane divided east-west road classified in the Circulation Element as a Secondary Arterial between Fairview Street and French Street. East of French Street, it is classified as a local road and has one travel lane in each direction. Parking is prohibited along Civic Center Drive, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph west of French Street.

Logan Street: Logan Street is a two-lane undivided north-south road and is designated as a Local Street per the City’s Circulation Element. At the intersection of Logan Street with Santa Ana Boulevard (just west of the Metrolink crossing), Logan Street is accessed via a right-turn in/right-turn out only configuration. As part of the proposed project, this connection will be terminated by providing a cul-de-sac north of Santa Ana Boulevard. On-street parking is allowed on Logan Street. The speed limit is 25 mph.

Fuller Street-Fruit Street: Fuller Street-Fruit Street is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway and intersects Santa Ana Boulevard just east of the Metrolink crossing. On-street parking is provided on Fuller Street north and south of Santa Ana Boulevard. The project proposes to utilize the east/west portion of Fruit Street as a detour route to connect to Grand Avenue during the final construction phase.

I-5 Freeway: Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) provides primary north-south regional access to Santa Ana Boulevard. I-5 southbound on- and off-ramps are located on Santa Ana Boulevard.

Access to I-5 northbound is provided via Grand Avenue. The intersection of Grand Avenue/Santa Ana Boulevard also provides an entrance to the I-5 southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, and has an exit ramp from the I-5 northbound HOV lane.

Grand Avenue: Grand Avenue is generally a north-south four-lane divided roadway. It is classified by the Circulation Element as a Major Arterial. Parking is prohibited along Grand Avenue, and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.

4.1.1.3 Existing Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of “level of service.” LOS is a scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections and ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion).

The City’s Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum acceptable level of service for major intersections in the City, except in major development areas (MDA). The City of Santa Ana considers LOS E the threshold for an acceptable LOS for intersections within an MDA. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) also establishes LOS E as the maximum LOS for CMP facilities. However, no study area intersections are CMP facilities, nor are any intersections within an MDA. Therefore, the LOS D threshold applies to all study intersections.

EXHIBIT 2
City Council 22 – 2802 5/5/2026
Chapter 4. Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Community Impact Assessment
Santa Ana Boulevard Grade Separation Project
March 2014
4-3
The project limits end to the east of the I-5 southbound on- and off-ramp to Santa Ana Boulevard, just west of Grand Avenue. However, since the limits of the proposed project improvements end just west of the I-5 southbound on- and off-ramps, and since the project is not anticipated to result in increases or decreases to the volumes along Santa Ana Boulevard, detailed evaluation of Caltrans facilities (including freeway mainline and ramp queuing analyses) is not required.

A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing intersection operating conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Table 23 summarizes the existing level of service at the study area intersections.

Santa Ana City CouncilMay 5, 2026

Santa Ana City Council
May 5, 2026