Brea City Council
August 19, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The FEIR and Staff Report continue to deny any inconsistencies with the General Plan Housing Element, ignoring that the Project site is one of six sites that were rezoned to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element.10 The Housing Element identifies “introduction of workforce housing on Amazon’s 31-acre warehouse site” as a “high priority” city action to implement the Housing Element.11 Despite the calls in the General Plan and BCC for the Project site to include residential/mixed-use development, the FEIR fails to consider the inclusion of workforce housing, even as a project alternative. The FEIR thus fails to meet CEQA’s informational requirements by failing to disclose these significant land use impacts, and failing to consider a reasonable range of Project alternatives. The proposed Project also fails to comply with the BCC and General Plan and may require revisions to the Project application to seek additional permits to allow the proposed non-conforming uses.

The FEIR fails to support its analysis of environmental impacts with substantial evidence. The FEIR underestimates and fails to mitigate potentially significant health risk, air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), noise, transportation, and cumulative impacts. For example, the FEIR’s air quality and health risk analyses assume that the Project’s construction will utilize construction equipment equipped the most stringent emissions controls, but no such requirement is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).12 The FEIR claims that the Project screens out of a full Vehicle Miles Travelled (“VMT”) analysis by (1) overestimating trips generated by the former Bank of America, (2) underestimating trips that would be made by the Project’s employees, and (3) assuming that the Project would not result in any new delivery trips, despite data showing that the Project would facilitate increased delivery trips in the region. The FEIR also fails to adequately evaluate the cumulative construction noise and air quality impacts of this Project and the Brea 265 Specific Plan. As a result of these issues and others, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to certify the FEIR. And due to the Project’s unmitigated impacts and land use inconsistencies, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to make the findings necessary to approve the Project’s other entitlements.

Recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added after the DEIR is circulated for public review but before certification of the FEIR.13 Significant new information can include changes in the project or the 10 Staff Report, re: Agenda Item 17 – General Plan Amendment No. 2021- 02 And Zone Change No. 2021- 01 (10/18/2022). 11 Brea General Plan, pg. 3-189. 12 Staff Report, pg. 48. 13 14 CCR §15088.5(a).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information, information about new or more severe impacts, new information about mitigation measures, the availability project alternatives or mitigation that is considerably different from others previously analyzed that would lessen significant environmental impacts but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; or where the DEIR “was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”14 Here, the DEIR lacked basic analysis and discussion of the Project’s air quality, noise, GHG, transportation, land use and energy impacts that is required by CEQA. The DEIR also failed to consider alternatives and mitigation that would lessen significant impacts. Recirculation of the EIR is necessary to correct these deficiencies.

CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR to comply with CEQA before any further action is taken on the Project. CARE CA reserves the right to provide supplemental comments at any and all later proceedings related to this Project.15
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Brea residents Brett Messer, Bobby Perez, and Matthew Stone, the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Brea and in Orange County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Brea and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. 14 14 CCR §15088.5(a)(1)-(4); Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043. 15 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.

App. 4th 1109, 1121.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. THE PROJECT CONFLICTS WITH THE SITE’S LAND USE

DESIGNATION
In addition to certification of the FEIR, the Project seeks approval of its application for Plan Review.16 The BCC provides that the purpose of the Plan Review procedure is to enable responsible city departments to review development proposals for conformity with applicable provisions of this code and all requirements of law.17 Here, the Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project conforms to the BCC due to the Project’s zoning inconsistencies.18 A. The FEIR Still Fails to Disclose the Project’s Land Use Inconsistencies in the Mixed-Use Zoning District
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained the Project’s parking facilities conflict with the site’s MU-II zoning, requiring a General Plan Amendment or zone change. In response, the FEIR states that “[p]ermitted uses within the MU-II zone include Automotive, parking lots/structures.”19 The FEIR also asserts that the Community Development Director has the authority to determine whether an unlisted use fits within an existing permitted use.20 But the FEIR fails to acknowledge that the BCC prohibits warehousing and accessory project components in the MU-II zone. The FEIR thus still ignores this plain language inconsistency and lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions that warehouse parking is an allowable use.

Specifically, the FEIR fails to acknowledge or otherwise address that BCC Table 20.11.020.A, under “Special Provisions,” states that “Industrial, Minor” “[m]ay include accessory non-industrial uses (e.g. administrative offices, 16 Staff Report, pg. 10.
17 BCC Section 20.408.040. 18 Staff Report, pg. 21.
19 FEIR, pg. 2-3, 2-199.
20 Id.; BCC 20.11.020(C).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
cafeterias, auditorium, recreation area) that provides support to and are clearly incidental to the permitted industrial use.” Because the Project’s parking spaces and drive aisles admittedly provide support to and are incidental to an “Industrial, Minor” use, these uses would qualify as Industrial Minor uses which the Code prohibits in the MU-II district. The FEIR’s conclusory statement that parking is a permitted use in the MU-II zone does not address this comment or resolve this inconsistency.

The FEIR also fails to acknowledge or otherwise address that the Project would have numerous inconsistencies with Section 20.258.010(A)(2) (“Mixed-Use Zoning Districts”), which explicitly prohibits warehousing uses: “Land uses specifically prohibited within the Mixed-Use II designation include the manufacturing and processing of goods and materials, and any warehousing.” Here, the Project would locate delivery van staging spaces, warehousing parking spaces, and drive aisles in the MU-II district.21 Locating these uses in the MU-II district violates Section 20.258.010(A)(2)’s explicit prohibition of “warehousing” in the MU-II district. A warehouse staging area serves as a zone for goods receipt, dispatch, or any other function, such as cross-docking.22 Delivery van staging spaces are thus a component of warehousing. Parking facilities which store warehouse delivery vans and warehouse employee vehicles are a component of warehousing operations. Drive aisles facilitating movement of delivery trucks are also a component of warehousing. Therefore, Section

20.258.010(A)(2) prohibits these uses in the MU-II district. The City argues that parking lots are a permitted use in the MU-II district, but this argument ignores that warehousing activities – including staging – would impermissibly take place in the MU-II district.

The proposed uses also conflict with BCC provisions calling for development of integrated, complementary uses. Section 20.258.010(A)(2) provides:
a. This zoning district provides opportunities for the coordinated development of urban villages that offer a diverse range of complementary land uses in close proximity to one another. Either vertical or horizontal integration of uses is allowed, with an emphasis on tying together the uses with appropriate pedestrian linkages. Residential densities at the higher end of the scale will be allowed for developments that clearly integrate uses. b. The Mixed-Use II designation applies to larger properties that would benefit from a coordinated, integrated approach to development… 21 DEIR, Parking Exhibit, Figure 3-7, Figure 4-2; Staff Report, Attachment H-1, pg. 6. 22 https://www.interlakemecalux.com/blog/logistics-staging-area-warehouse.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
And Section 20.258.030(A)(3) (Specific Development Standards For All Mixed-Use Projects), requires that a stand-alone nonresidential project is only permitted in an MU-II zone when it is planned and designed as an integrated element of a larger mixed-use development area: “[i]n MU-II (Mixed-Use II) zoning districts, both vertical and/or horizontal integration of nonresidential and residential uses shall be allowed; however, stand-alone residential projects and stand-alone nonresidential projects are allowed when planned and designed as an integrated element of a larger mixed-use development area.”23 Here, the uses proposed in the MU-II zone also appear to violate Sections

20.258.010(A)(2) and 20.258.030(A)(3) because a warehouse parking lot is not a complementary use integrated with the adjacent MU-II-zoned parcels. The MU-IIzoned parcel on the Project site is adjacent to an MU-II-zoned area developed by La Floresta, a master-planned horizontal mixed-use comprised of single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses.24 The proposed warehouse parking lot is not integrated with La Floresta (in conflict with Housing Element policies25) because the proposed parking lot would not be used by or otherwise interact with residents or businesses of the mixed-use area.26 Even if the warehouse parking lot was designed to reduce adjacency impacts on the neighboring uses, its function would not be integrated with the larger mixed-use area.

CARE CA’s DEIR comments explained that a warehouse parking lot is not considered a complementary use in an urban village, as required by Section

20.258.010(A)(2). It is not complementary because California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) guidance,27 the Attorney General’s warehouse guidance,28 and California Assembly Bill 98 each call for buffers between warehousing and residential uses.29 23 Section 20.258.030(A)(1) defines integration and provides examples. 24 DEIR pg. 4-3 (Figure 4-1), 4-5. 25 General Plan, Housing Element, pg. 3-129.
26 DEIR pg. 4-3 (Figure 4-1), 4-5.
27 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), pg. 3, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-boardair-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf; see CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook (December 2019), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook 1.pdf. 28 State of California Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 29 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202320240AB98; see Board of Supervisors Policy F-3, “Good Neighbor” Policy for Logistics and Warehouse/Distribution Uses”, available at https://rivcocob.org/sites/g/files/aldnop311/files/migrated/wp-content-uploads-2020-01- Good-Neighbor-Policy-F-3-Final-Adopted.pdf (“Warehouse/distribution facilities should be generally May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
As a result, even if their impacts are mitigated, warehouse uses are not a complementary use permitted in an MU-II district under Section 20.258.010(A)(2).

The FEIR fails to acknowledge or otherwise address that the Project is also inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan contains language stating that a warehouse and incidental parking facilities are not permitted land uses in the MU-II district. Table C (“Land Use”) of the General Plan’s Housing Element Sites Inventory states that land uses allowed in the MU-II district include “[s]inglefamily dwellings, townhomes, high-density multi-family dwellings, public facilities, retail uses, restaurants, office uses.”30 The delivery van staging areas and parking uses proposed by the Project are not included in this list and are incongruous with the other uses on the list. Thus, the Project’s proposed uses are prohibited in the MU-II district.

In sum, as currently proposed, the Project is inconsistent with the BCC and General Plan and may require additional entitlements, including a General Plan Amendment and zone change, to resolve the inconsistencies. Both the DEIR and now the FEIR violate CEQA because it fails to address the apparent inconsistencies with numerous provisions in the BCC and General Plan, and fails to mitigate these significant land use impacts. The DEIR was fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature such that that meaningful public review and comment on the Project’s land use inconsistencies was precluded.”31 The Project application must be revised to include all necessary approvals, and the EIR must be revised and recirculated to address and mitigate the Project’s land use inconsistencies.32 III. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
A. Use of Back-Up Generators is a Reasonably Foreseeable Consequence of the Project
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained that City underestimates the Project’s air quality impacts by failing to analyze reasonably foreseeable emissions from backup generators. As explained in CARE CA’s prior comments and Dr.

Clark’s attached comments, the use of backup generators is a reasonably designed so that truck bays and loading docks are a minimum of 300 feet, measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door using a direct straight-line method.”). 30 General Plan, Housing Element, Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table C, available at https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17370/Brea HCD site inventory spreadsheet - REVISED Final Web. 31 Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 32 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15124 (d)(B) (the project description shall include “[a] list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project”).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.33 The FEIR does not refute that power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies are common, reasonably foreseeable events in the region that lead to temporary losses of power.34 Instead the FEIR argues that the Project would not include generators, but would instead rent a generator if needed for longer-term losses of power.35 This argument is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15378, which defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”36 This means that even if generators are not proposed in the Project site plan, their impacts must be analyzed if their use is reasonably foreseeable.

IV. THE FEIR’S ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING DISCUSSION IS

INADEQUATE
A. The FEIR Still Overestimates Trip Generation from the Existing Use
CARE CA’s prior comments demonstrated that the DEIR masked the Project’s net generation of daily vehicle trips by overestimating trips generated by the previous use, a Bank of America call center. Instead of using the fitted curve equation to calculate trips from the existing use, as recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual, the City applied an average daily trip rate, which overestimates the trips from the call center. The FEIR fails to correct this error. In response, the FEIR acknowledges that “[a]lthough the fitted curve equation would result in a lower trip generation, as stated above, the average trip generation rate was used to estimate traffic from the prior Bank of America use because it is embedded in the OCTAM [“Orange County Transportation Analysis Model”] model.”37 Mr. Marshall explains that the FEIR’s argument is erroneous because OCTAM includes only generic land use categories and does not incorporate or replace the ITE trip generation rates.38 The FEIR’s suggestion that the fitted curve equation cannot be applied is not supported by 33 Clark Comments, pg. 7.
34 FEIR, pg. 2-201.
35 Id.
36 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
37 FEIR, pg. 2-209.
38 Marshall Comments, pg. 2.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence in the record. The trip generation rate must be revised to reflect an accurate baseline.39
The FEIR also asserts that its analysis is conservative because it assumes the Bank of America use had a service population of 1,447 employees even though the OCTAM model assumes 2,231 employees.”40 However, the 1,447 estimate is based on City records for the actual Bank of America call center, so the default estimate in the OCTAM is not supported by substantial evidence.41 B. The FEIR’s Description of Ambient Noise Levels is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
CARE CA’s prior comments demonstrated that the DEIR failed to establish a proper baseline, as it relies on 15-minute measurements taken in the late morning hours. The FEIR responds that these daytime noise measurements are sufficient because construction would be limited to daytime hours.42 But Ms. Toncheva explains that the 15-minute intervals comprise just 2% of the 12-hour construction period (7 a.m. to 7p.m.), and the FEIR fails to address how typical these data are for the rest of the daytime hours.43 The FEIR’s reliance on short-term measurements also does not meet the standards of the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual44 (“FTA Manual”), which recommends a minimum of three one-hour Leq noise measurements to estimate the 24-hour Ldn/CNEL.45
The FEIR’s estimate of noise levels from existing traffic is based on the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) Noise Prediction Model. CARE CA’s prior comments explain that the FEIR fails to include validation measurements to verify that the model is accurate. Validation measurements tie the values in the model to existing measured conditions.46 Ms. Toncheva observes that the FEIR still does not validate the noise model.47 Ms. Toncheva also explains that the model used 39 Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246. 40 FEIR, pg. 2-210 41 FEIR, pg. 2-197. 42 FEIR, pg. 2-198. 43 Toncheva Comments, pg. 1. 44 Available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123 0.pdf 45 Jue DEIR Comments, pg. 2. 46 Toncheva Comments, pg. 2.
47 Id.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
by the City was discontinued by FHWA more than 20 years ago.48 The newer Traffic Noise Model (“TNM”) is more accurate because it contains not only a “tire/pavement noise” component, but also an “engine/exhaust” noise component.49 As a result, the FEIR fails to accurately reflect existing traffic noise.

In sum, the DEIR’s inadequate baseline analysis precluded meaningful public review of the Project’s noise impacts.50 The FEIR still fails to provide a description, supported by substantial evidence, of the “real conditions on the ground.”51 The EIR must be revised and recirculated to include an updated environmental setting that accurately reflects existing conditions.

V. THE FEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A. The FEIR Still Fails to Address Inconsistencies with the Housing Element
CARE CA commented on the DEIR that the Project is inconsistent with the Housing Element of the Brea General Plan because it proposes a warehouse parking lot on a mixed-use site specifically identified in the Housing Element as a site with strong potential for residential development.52 The FEIR responds that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element because developing housing at the Project site is not necessary to meet the City’s RHNA requirements, but fails to support its conclusion with substantial evidence.53
The FEIR claims that “[t]he Project Site is not needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation, and as such, the Project does not have an impact on the City’s compliance with the Housing Element.”54 The FEIR ignores that the Housing Element states that this specific site’s “development will contribute to the City’s 6th cycle housing growth needs and RHNA buffer.”55 The Housing Element specifies that the MU-II portion of the Project site has the 48 Id.
49 Id.
50 14 CCR 15088.5(a)(4). 51 Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246. 52 City of Brea General Plan, Housing Element, pg. 3-129, available at https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13950/Chapter-3---Housing-Element-2022---6thCycle. 53 FEIR, pg. 2-202. 54 FEIR, pg. 2-196, 197.
55 City of Brea General Plan, Housing Element, pg. 3-129.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
potential for 75 units.56 Development of housing on the site would help the City reach its RHNA goal, as the City must construct an additional 2,340 units during the 2021-2029 planning period.57 Developing the site without any housing is thus inconsistent with the Housing Element, and the FEIR fails to demonstrate that all required housing units will be placed elsewhere. This inconsistency must be disclosed in the EIR.

The FEIR acknowledges that “in identifying the provision of affordable housing throughout Brea as a high priority, the Housing Element provides for a number of potential action items that the City could consider, which includes exploring introduction of workforce housing on the Project Site.” But the FEIR argues that “this potential action item does not mandate the City to require introduction of workforce housing on the Project Site” and housing could be constructed on the site in the future.58 This response ignores that even if the policy is not binding, a project that lacks any housing would nonetheless be inconsistent with the policy. Many general plan policies do not impose specific and binding requirements on individual projects, yet CEQA requires analysis of inconsistencies with those policies.59
The FEIR still fails to respond to or otherwise address the Project’s inconsistency with goals and policies in the Housing Element regarding the provision of adequate housing sites. Goal 3.0 provides: “[p]rovide adequate housing sites through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to accommodate Brea’s share of regional housing growth needs.”60 Policy 3.4 provides “[e]xplore opportunities to integrate housing in underutilized commercial centers, and to reuse excess or obsolete commercial buildings for housing.” The Project is inconsistent with Policy 3.4 because the City implemented Policy 3.4 by rezoning the Project site to MU-II for the stated purpose of having Amazon construct workforce housing. By not proposing any residential units, the Project is inconsistent with Policy 3.4. The Project is also inconsistent with policies pursuant 56 General Plan, Housing Element, PDF pg. 326, available at https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13950/Chapter-3---Housing-Element-2022---6thCycle. 57 General Plan Annual Progress Report for 2023 (March 5, 2024), pg. 2, available at https://bebrea.com/DocumentCenter/View/15385/Brea City 2023 GP-APR. 58 FEIR, pg. 2-197. 59 CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d). 60 General Plan, Housing Element, pg. 3-164.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
to Goal 2.0 (provision of new affordable housing)61 by proposing industrial development of an MU-II-zoned site.

The FEIR still fails to address that the siting of the Project in relation to sensitive receptors is also inconsistent with the Housing Element. The Housing Element states that residential development is desirable on this site due to the site’s proximity to the La Floresta Master Plan community,62 but the Project instead proposes a stand-alone industrial use that is neither integrated nor compatible with the neighboring residential community. The FEIR violates CEQA because it does not address this inconsistency.

The FEIR argues that the City need not analyze inconsistencies with housing policies because the Project does not include housing.63 This is incorrect. In United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, et al.,64 the City of Los Angeles argued that the Housing Element did not apply to a project because it was a hotel, rather than housing, project. The Second District Court of Appeal held that the City must analyze Housing Element policies because even though the project did not propose housing, it implicated housing policies. Here, the Project implicates Housing Element goals and policies relating to this specific parcel. Therefore, inconsistencies with those policies must analyzed in the EIR.

In sum, the Project is inconsistent with numerous Housing Element policies directly applicable to the Project. The DEIR failed to disclose these inconsistencies, and the FEIR still fails to disclose these inconsistencies, in violation of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). The City must revise and recirculate the EIR.65 B. The FEIR Still Fails to Analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
CARE CA’s comments explain that the FEIR violates CEQA by failing to analyze a Project alternative that includes workforce housing. The FEIR responds that the Project is consistent with the Housing Element, so a workforce housing alternative to address an inconsistency with the Housing Element is not 61 Id. at pg. 3-163 (“Goal 2.0: Assist in the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of the community. Establish a balanced approach to meeting housing needs that includes the needs of both renter and owner households.”).
62 General Plan, Housing Element at pg. 3-129.
63 FEIR, 2-202 (“Since no residential uses are proposed for the Project Site, the Draft EIR did not include a discussion of General Plan goals and policies related to the provision of housing, including goals and policies contained in the Housing Element.”). 64 United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074. 65 14 CCR 15088.5(a)(4).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
necessary.66 As is explained above, this claim is unsupported by substantial evidence. The FEIR therefore still fails to meaningfully analyze a workforce housing alternative that would reduce (or resolved) the Project’s significant land use inconsistencies.

CARE CA’s DEIR comments explained in detail that an alternative that includes housing would meet the standards of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.67 The FEIR responds that an alternative that includes housing would be speculative, not based on evidence, and that the DEIR already considered and rejected an alternative with housing.68 However, the FEIR does not include any evidence or analysis suggesting that inclusion of housing would be infeasible or incompatible with the Project’s goals. And the DEIR only rejected a 100% residential alternative, as opposed to a partial alternative that would include housing only on the MU-IIzoned parcel. Thus, substantial evidence in the record still shows that an alternative that includes workforce housing on a portion of the Project site would be feasible and effective.

In sum, The FEIR rejects CARE CA’s proposal to develop the MU-II-zoned parcel with workforce housing. Because the FEIR rejects a feasible alternative not considered in the DEIR (a partial residential alternative), the EIR must be recirculated. The EIR must be revised to analyze an alternative that provides workforce housing on the MU-II portion of the Project site, as called for in the Housing Element.69
C. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts

1. The FEIR Still Improperly Takes Credit for Trips from Existing Amazon Facilities
CARE CA’s DEIR comments explain that the EIR improperly takes credit for trips from existing Amazon facilities by assuming that the Project would reduce delivery trips to existing Amazon delivery stations. CARE CA presented data demonstrating that overall Amazon delivery trips are expected to increase in the region, and development of an additional delivery station would facilitate this 66 FEIR, pg. 2-202.
67 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 lists factors which should be considered when selecting a reasonable range of alternatives “[a]mong the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” 68 FEIR, pg. 2-202.
69 14 CCR 15088.5(a)(3).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
increase. For example, the volume of packages passing through Amazon’s logistics network has increased each year.70 Amazon’s U.S. package volume increased 15.7% from 2022 to 2023.71 From 2021 to 2022, Amazon Logistics’ package volume grew

6.25%.72 From 2018 to 2023, package volumes increased at a 49.1% compound annual growth rate.73 This evidence demonstrates that the overall number of delivery trips made to the Project and the five existing delivery stations referenced in the FEIR is expected to increase.

The FEIR does not meaningfully address this data, simply stating, without any supporting evidence: “the commenter’s assertion that the Project would increase the overall number of delivery trips in the region is speculative because it assumed an unsubstantiated future customer base increase here are a finite number of deliveries within a region... There are a finite number of deliveries within a region.”74 Thus, the only evidence in the record demonstrates that the overall number of delivery trips made to the Project and the five existing delivery stations referenced in the FEIR is expected to increase. Thus, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to take credit for trips from existing Amazon facilities. The VMT analysis must be revised.

2. The FEIR Underestimates Trips Generated by the Project CARE CA’s prior comments explain that the FEIR underestimates trips by assuming that each employee will only make 2 trips per day, failing to account for employee mid-day trips. The FEIR responds that any trips beyond “beginning of shift and end-of-shift trips” would be speculative.75 This response ignores that the FEIR apparently accounts for mid-day trips for the previous call center.76 Mr.

Marshall explains that it is internally inconsistent to apply 3.33 average trips per employee per day for the previous use, but only 2.0 average trips per employee per day to the proposed use. If the 3.33 average trips per employee rate applied to the previous use is applied to the proposed use, the result would be 1,918 personal 70 CapitalOne Shopping Research, Amazon Logistics Statistics (Last updated: October 8, 2024), https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/amazon-logistics-statistics/; see Supplychaindive.com, Amazon leapfrogs UPS and 4 other takeaways from a top shipping index (April 17, 2024), https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/amazon-ups-4-other-takeaways-from-shipping-index-pitneybowes/713329/; 71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 FEIR, pg. 2-203.
75 FEIR, pg. 2-209.
76 Marshall Comments, pg. 3.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
vehicle trips per day, which is 766 more than assumed in the FEIR.77 The FEIR’s approach thus masks the net trips that would be generated by the Project.

3. The Project Would Have a Potentially Significant,
Unmitigated VMT Impact
The FEIR finds that the Project would have a less than significant VMT impact, and would screen out of a full VMT analysis, because the Project would generate fewer trips than the existing Bank of America office.78 As explained herein and in the prior comments, the FEIR reaches this conclusion by overestimating trips from the existing Bank of America office, underestimating the trips that would be generated by the Project, and improperly assuming that delivery van and FLEX trips would correspond to a net reduction from existing Amazon facilities.

Mr. Marshall corrected these errors, accounting for a draft condition of approval that limits the maximum number of line haul trucks and delivery vans to the maximum numbers mentioned in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report.79 The corrected analysis shows that daily VMT would be 15,461 higher than the previous use.80
Because the Project would result in greater than 100 net daily trips, and no other screening criteria are applicable to the Project,81 the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to conclude the Project screens out of a VMT analysis. A full VMT analysis must be included in a revised and recirculated EIR.
77 Marshall DEIR Comments, pg. 3.
78 DEIR, pg. 5.8-16, 17
79 Marshall Comments, pg. 3.
80 Id. at 4.
81 DEIR, pg. 5.8-16.
revised Table 4 count trips prior VMT new VMT notes
Previous Land Use
Bank of America 1,447 3,908 34,781 - reduced in proportion to trips Delivery Station
Personal vehicles 576 1,918 - 34,765 add non-commute trips delivery vans 1,514 12,506 remove credit
FLEX 97 194 1,758 remove credit
Total 673 2,036 49,029
Difference from previous 14,247
May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
D. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Potentially Significant Air Quality and Health Risk Impacts

1. The FEIR Improperly Compresses Analysis of the
Project’s Unmitigated and Mitigated Impacts
The FEIR’s air quality analysis assumes that the Project would use exclusively Tier 4 Final construction equipment, which is identified in the FEIR as a “project design feature.”82 CARE CA’s comments discuss well-established caselaw that requires measures taken to “mitigate or offset the alleged adverse environmental impacts” of a project to be identified as mitigation measures.83 The FEIR responds that “[a]ccording to information provided by the Applicant, the general contractor for the Project would be required to ensure that all construction equipment is model year 2017 or newer,” and all 2017 equipment is Tier 4 Final.84 This response fails to resolve the issue that the referenced “requirement” to use 2017 or newer equipment is not identified as a mitigation measure.

CARE CA’s comments also explained that the FEIR’s approach violates CEQA’s requirements to analyze a project’s unmitigated and mitigated impacts separately.85 The FEIR fails to address this issue.86 Dr. Clark’s comments demonstrate that lower-tiered equipment emits more criteria air pollutants and TACs than Tier 4 Final equipment, illustrating that the FEIR fails to disclose the Project’s unmitigated impacts.
82 DEIR, pg. 5.1-26.
83 Berkeley Hills Watershed, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th 880 (holding that measures were not “mitigation measures” because they were developed as part of the project design to meet building code requirements for properties located in seismic zones and address preexisting conditions on the site as opposed to being “proposed subsequent actions by the project’s proponent to mitigate or offset the alleged adverse environmental impacts” of the project); Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA). 84 FEIR, pg. 2-203, 204.
85 Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (compression of mitigation measures into project design without acknowledging potentially significant impact if effects were not mitigated violates CEQA).
86 FEIR, pg. 2-203, 204.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper

2. The FEIR Lacks a Binding Requirement to Use Tier 4
Final Equipment
Neither the conditions of approval87 nor the MMRP88 requires the Project to use Tier 4 Final equipment. The FEIR states that “the general contractor for the Project would be required to ensure that all construction equipment is model year 2017 or newer,”89 but this requirement cannot be enforced if it is not a condition of approval and not in the MMRP. Further, even if the generator contractor that is currently expected to work on the Project uses 2017 or newer equipment, the City must evaluate the impacts should a different general contractor be used.

Because Tier 4 Final equipment has much lower emissions than lower-tiered equipment, each of the FEIR’s analyses that assume use of this equipment underestimate the Project’s emissions. The Project’s construction health risk analysis is unsupported by substantial evidence because lower-tiered equipment emits more TACs than Tier 4 Final equipment.90 For instance, Tier 4 interim engines can emit 10 times more Particulate Matter than the same-sized Tier 4 final equipment.91 Thus, nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed to significantly greater concentrations of TACs than disclosed in the FEIR. The FEIR’s air quality analysis is also unsupported by substantial evidence because Tier 4 interim engines emit 8.5 times greater NOx emissions than the same sized Tier 4 final equipment.

Tier 4 Final equipment must be included as a binding mitigation measure in a revised and recirculated EIR.

3. The FEIR Fails to Analyze Emissions from Onsite
Equipment
The FEIR’s air quality analysis fails to include emissions from cargohandling equipment such as forklifts. Dr. Clark explains that the failure to include this source of emissions underestimates the Project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants and TACs.92 Dr. Clark estimates that the missing operational equipment would generate an additional 4.57 lbs per day of total organic gases (TOGs), 36.58 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and 1.75 lbs per day of DPM.93 On an annual basis this would equate to 0.8 tons of TOG, 6.68 tons of NOx and 0.32 tons of DPM that 87 Staff Report, pg. 30.
88 Staff Report, pg. 48.
89 FEIR, pg. 2-203.
90 Clark Comments, pg. 9.
91 Id.
92 Clark Comments, pg. 12.
93 Id.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
are not accounted for in the air quality analysis and operational HRA. The FEIR’s conclusions are thus unsupported by substantial evidence and must be revised in a recirculated EIR.

4. The FEIR’s Health Risk Analysis Underestimates Impacts The FEIR includes an HRA reflecting health risk impacts from Project construction and operations. Dr. Clark explains that one of the factors that impacts health risk impacts at a residential receptor is frequency at home (“FAH”). A higher FAH reflects a greater exposure to pollutants. The FEIR uses the following FAH values: from the third trimester to age <2 years, 85 percent of time is spent at home; from age 2 through <16 years, 72 percent of time is spent at home; from age 16 years and greater, 73 percent of time is spent at home.94 The FEIR states that the HRA was conducted consistent with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) guidance.95 But Dr. Clark explains that these FAH values do not comply with guidance in the OEHHA Toxic Hot Spots manual.96 OEHHA recommends that Projects with any school within the 1×10-6 (or greater) isopleth should use FAH = 1 for the child age groups (3rd Trimester, 0<2 years, and 2<16 years).97 Here, the risk at Olinda Elementary School is within the 1×10-6 (or greater) isopleth (health risk of 1.02×10-6 during construction).98 Thus, an FAH of 1 should be used. Dr. Clark calculates that when an FAH of 1 is used, the resulting cancer risk for the maximum exposed individual receptor would increase by at least 18% (from 4.61 in 1,000,000 to 5.42 in 1,000,000) for the construction phase HRA.99 E. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Evaluate Potentially Significant Noise Impacts

1. The FEIR’s Construction Noise Significance Threshold is Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The FEIR provides that construction noise under 80 dBA would be less than significant.100 CARE CA explained that CEQA requires the City to also evaluate the 94 Clark Comments, pg. 13.
95 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 70.
96 Clark Comments, pg. 13.
97 OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual (February 2015), pg. 8-5, available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 98 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 90. 99 Clark Comments, pg. 13.
100 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2059, 2060.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
significance of the increase in noise over ambient levels.101 The FEIR responds:
“[u]nlike operational noise, which can be long-term, construction noise is short-term and intermittent, occurring only during designated work hours in compliance with City noise regulations…Furthermore, as an urban area, the City’s regularly experiences construction activity, making such noise a normal part of the community’s noise environment.”102
The FEIR’s reasoning violates CEQA because Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the Project would cause a significant noise impact if it would result in “[g]eneration of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.”103 Thus, the City cannot dismiss the increase in noise from construction activities on the basis that they are temporary. The FEIR must be revised to apply a legally adequate construction noise threshold.

The FEIR’s response is also internally contradictory because it argues that construction noise is not a concern because it is short-term and intermittent, yet states that construction activity is a frequent generator of noise in the community.

The fact the construction activity is a frequent source of noise in the community demonstrates that increases in ambient noise from construction must be analyzed.

The overlapping construction of the Project, the Brea 265 Specific Plan, and other nearby projects means that the communities near the Project site would be subjected to construction noise from several projects over the course of years.104 The FTA Manual cited by the FEIR states that “[p]roject construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”105 Accordingly, the FEIR’s construction noise threshold must reflect that the nearby residential communities would be subject to years of construction noise 101 Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733; see King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894 (citing Keep Our Mountains Quiet).
102 FEIR, pg. 2-204.
103 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2056. 104 DEIR, pg. 4-11, Table 4-3; City of Brea, Brea 265 Specific Plan Draft EIR, SCH No. 2018121035, pg. 3-63, available at https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12988/DRAFT-EIR---BREA265-392022 (For the purposes of the DEIR analysis, it was assumed that the site preparation work would commence in mid2023, and the entire construction would be completed between 2030 and 2035. Phase 1 development would start in August 2023 and end in May 2025; Phase 2 would start in October 2024 and end in July 2027; and Phase 3 would start in August 2026 and end in May 2030.), 105 FTA Manual, September 2018, pg. 179.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
from large development projects. An EIR must be prepared that applies a legally adequate construction noise threshold.

2. Construction Noise Impacts are Potentially Significant

CARE CA’s DEIR comments demonstrated that construction noise impacts are potentially significant because they would result in noticeable increases over ambient levels.106 The FEIR responds that construction would only result in a 1.8 dBA noise increase over existing levels.107 This statement ignores that the actual increases over ambient conditions may be greater than disclosed in the FEIR, as the DEIR relies on short-term ambient noise measurements that may not be reflective of actual conditions.108 And by comparing construction noise impacts to an average of the measured ambient levels at different sensitive receptor locations, the FEIR’s analysis may underestimate noise impacts at sensitive receptors with lower-thanaverage ambient noise levels.109 Therefore, construction noise impacts are likely greater than disclosed in the FEIR.

Ms. Toncheva also explains that the FEIR’s noise study does not correctly apply FTA Manual methodology. Ms. Toncheva explains that a construction noise study can either conduct a “general” analysis that (1) uses the acoustical center of the project to calculate distances, but (2) does not apply equipment usage factors, or conduct a “specific” analysis that (1) uses the actual distance between receivers and construction equipment, and (2) applies equipment usage factors.110 The FEIR erroneously utilizes equipment usage factors, but also uses the acoustical center of the project to calculate distances.111 Ms. Toncheva demonstrates that applying a usage factor of 40% to a general FTA construction noise assessment would lead to an underestimation of construction noise levels of 4 dBA.112 Ms. Toncheva corrected the FEIR’s analysis to apply realistic distances and usage factors.
106 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2042.
107 FEIR, pg. 2-204.
108 Toncheva Comments, pg. 4.
109 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2047.
110 Toncheva Comments, pg. 4-5. 111 Id. at 4. 112 Id. at 5.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
As such, sleep disturbance impacts from this Project’s operations are potentially significant, and the FEIR’s finding that impacts would be less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. The FEIR must be revised to analyze the full scope of noise impacts generated by the Project.

4. The FEIR Fails to Analyze Impacts from Rooftop
Mechanical Equipment
CARE CA’s DEIR comments demonstrated that the FEIR’s operational noise analysis lacks analysis of rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC units.119 The FEIR responds that HVAC units would result in noise levels of approximately

41.5 dBA at the nearby residences, which is below the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards.120 Ms. Toncheva observes that the FEIR assumes only a single HVAC would be used, which is unrealistic.121 CARE CA’s prior comments demonstrate that a warehouse of this size could require 90 25-ton HVAC units and would be operated 24/7.122 Ms. Toncheva explains that even 9 or 10 of these smaller units would result in levels above the City nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dBA.123 The potentially significant noise impacts from the Project’s stationary equipment must be analyzed in a revised EIR.

F. The FEIR Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA’s DEIR comments demonstrated that the City failed to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project, in violation of CEQA. The FEIR claims “[n]either the CEQA Guidelines nor PRC specifically require the Draft EIR to evaluate the measures to reduce the Project’s energy consumption in excess of Title 24.”124 But CARE CA’s prior comments discussed a line of cases that hold that a legallyadequate energy analysis cannot simply state that a project would comply with Title 24 regulations, but must also investigate energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project, as required in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.125
119 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2063-64.
120 FEIR, pg. 2-205. 121 Toncheva Comments, pg. 3. 122 Jue DEIR Comments, pg. 4. 123 Id. 124 FEIR, pg. 2-207.
125 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.

City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91; California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The FEIR attempts to distinguish this Project from these cases by arguing that the EIR rejected in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer concerned a large, 760-unit residential project.126 The FEIR fails to address other relevant cases identified in CARE CA’s comments, such as Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, in which a court rejected an EIR for a

15.33-acre Costco because it “improperly relies on compliance with the building code to mitigate operational and construction energy impacts, without further discussion of the appendix F criteria.”127 The rule articulated in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer is thus not limited to specific plan-sized projects, as suggested in the FEIR.128
Statements in the FEIR regarding the Project’s use of renewable energy do not meet CEQA’s requirement to “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”129 The FEIR states that the Project’s electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison, which is required to procure an increasing percentage of its energy from renewable sources (100% renewable by 2045).130 This statement does not address what renewable energy features could be incorporated into the Project to reduce its overall energy consumption, such as onsite solar facilities or energy storage facilities.

The FEIR also states that “the Project would be conditioned to install renewable energy systems/technologies prior to final occupancy, including but not limited to solar panels.”131 This discussion fails to analyze which aspects of the Project could support solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar photovoltaics. The FEIR’s analysis also fails to address the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities. The FEIR’s discussion thus fails to meaningfully analyze whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project, as required by Appendix F. Further, the condition of approval alluded to in the FEIR is nonbinding and does not actually require any particular renewable energy systems: “[p]rior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall incorporate renewable energy systems/ (“CCEC”); League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68. 126 FEIR, pg. 2-206.
127 (2016) 248 CA4th 256. 128 FEIR, pg. 2-206.
129 League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68.
130 FEIR, pg. 2-206.
131 Id.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
technologies within the Project Site, including, but not limited to solar panels, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.”132
The FEIR also fails to analyze the feasibility of numerous energy conservation and renewable energy measures recommended in CARE CA’s comments. For example, the FEIR still fails to evaluate the feasibility of meeting voluntary Tier 1 or 2 standards described in Appendix A5, Nonresidential Voluntary Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. The FEIR also fails to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of shortening permissible idling times for construction equipment and delivery trucks accessing the Project site. The FEIR dismisses this proposed measure as a “measure to mitigate air quality and GHG impacts from the construction and operation of the Project,”133 but ignores that reducing idling times would reduce fuel consumption from trucks visiting the Project site.

In sum, the FEIR’s energy analysis fails to adequately analyze energy measures and fails to meaningfully address the topics required by Appendix F.134 This analysis must be provided in a revised and recirculated EIR.

G. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts

1. The FEIR Still Fails to Evaluate Cumulative
Construction Air Quality Impacts
The FEIR fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality and health risk impacts from construction activities. As explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, the FEIR asserts that any exceedance of a SCAQMD project-level threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable project-level thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.135 CARE CA explained that this approach is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with the existing and proposed development surrounding the Project site, shown in the figure below.136 132 Staff Report, pg. 32.
133 FEIR, pg. 2-207.
134 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 135 DEIR, pg. 5.1-41. 136 DEIR, pg. 4-11, Table 4-3.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The FEIR responds that the SCAQMD “significance criteria considers the cumulative conditions of the South Coast Air Basin and the more localized source receptor areas.”137 But the thresholds do not consider the conditions of this specific area, an area in which a residential neighborhood would be subject to the combined construction emissions from development of the Brea 265 Specific Plan, which includes construction of up to 1,100 residential units, parks and recreational amenities, open space, and right-of-way improvements; and a warehouse building adjacent to the Project site at 3200 Nasa Street.138 The residential community would be flanked on both sides by large projects emitting TACs during construction 137 FEIR, pg. 2-207.
138 DEIR, pg. 4-9.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
and operation. These combined emissions may result in significant health risks. The FEIR’s lack of analysis of these cumulative impacts violates CEQA. As explained in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford,139 an EIR violates CEQA if it “improperly focuse[s] upon the individual project’s relative effects and omit[s] facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.”140 The City must prepare a revised EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates cumulative construction impacts.

2. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Cumulative
Operational Air Quality Impacts
The FEIR fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality and health risk impacts from Project operations. As with its analysis of construction impacts, the FEIR asserts that any exceedance of a SCAQMD project-level threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable project-level thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.141 This approach violates CEQA, as explained above and in CARE CA’s prior comments.

In response to comments from SCAQMD raising concerns regarding cumulative air quality and health risk impacts, the FEIR includes a supplemental cumulative impacts analysis applying draft SCAQMD protocols.142 The draft SCAQMD protocols lower the cancer risk threshold (from 10 in one million) if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met.143 These factors include (1) MATES excess cancer risk, (2) if there are 951 daily heavy-duty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route, and (3) if the Project is located in a SB 535 disadvantaged community or an AB 617 community. The FEIR claims that the Project’s 1.02 in one million cancer risk would not exceed the lowest threshold of 3 in one million. This finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the FEIR does not factor in cargo equipment emissions and applies lower exposure factors than recommended in OEHHA’s Toxic Hotspots Analysis Guidance.144 The FEIR notes that the actual number of truck trips under Existing + Project + Future conditions is not known. Dr. Clark presents data from the Redford 139 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”). 140 Id. at 721. 141 DEIR, pg. 5.1-41. 142 FEIR, pg. 2-62, 63. 143 Id. at 2-63. 144 Clark Comments, pg. 13-14.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC, which show that existing warehouses within 5 km of the Project site generate 2,000 daily truck trips, producing 2.8 lbs of DPM per day and 312 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day.145 Many of these may pass through the community.

The FEIR further notes “that the Brea is NOT identified as an SB 535 or AB 617 Disadvantaged Community by the California Environmental Protection Agency or California Air Resources Board, respectively.”146 The FEIR does not acknowledge that the census tract scores in the 85.6 percentile in the State for particulate matter and 66.3 percentile for DPM.147 Other versions of the draft SCAQMD guidance reduce the significance threshold for areas with a pollution burden greater than the 80th Percentile.148 The emissions from the Project would contribute to the community’s already elevated exposure to particulate matter. The FEIR must be revised to adequately disclose the Project’s cumulative impacts.

3. The FEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate Cumulative
Construction Noise Impacts
As acknowledged in the FEIR, there are residences to the east of Valencia Avenue/SR 142 and south of N. Rose Drive that would be located between the Project Site and the Brea 265 Specific Plan site, which proposes up to 1,100 residential units, parks and recreational amenities, open space, and right-of-way improvements.149 The FEIR fails to quantify the combined impacts of these projects, in violation of CEQA’s requirement to analyze a projects effects “in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”150 The FEIR reasons that no impacts would occur because is some noise shielding, and “most” of the residences would not have direct line of sight to the projects.151 The FEIR’s discussion is not supported by any quantitative analysis. Quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate whether the shielding discussed in the DEIR would reduce the combined noise impacts to a less-thansignificant level. 145 Clark Comments, pg. 16.
146 FEIR, pg. 2-63.
147 DEIR, Combined Appendices PDF, pg. 173.
148 SCAQMD, Working Group Meeting #6 presentation (November 6, 2024), pg. 19, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6- 20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561 13. 149 DEIR, pg. 5.5-30.
150 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15130(a), 15065(a)(3), 15355(b). 151 DEIR, pg. 5.5-30.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The FEIR also states that construction noise levels from the Project and related projects would be intermittent and temporary, and it is anticipated that, as with the Project, the related projects would comply with City’s noise standards and allowable hours of construction.152 The FEIR’s reference to the temporary nature of construction noise is irrelevant because CEQA requires analysis of temporary increases in noise.153 The FEIR’s statement that the two projects would comply with noise standards ignores that noise sources can combine to create a larger noise impact, potentially in excess of significance thresholds.

The FEIR states that “[a]ny noise associated with cumulative construction activities would be reduced to the degree reasonably and technically feasible through proposed mitigation measures, if required, for each individual related project... Therefore, construction noise levels resulting from the Project would not combine with construction noise levels generated by the two related projects to create a significant cumulative noise impact.”154 This statement is unsupported.

The FEIR and conditions of approval for the Project do not include any construction noise measures. This is because the FEIR found the Project’s project-level impacts to be less-than-significant; the FEIR did not estimate the combined noise impacts of the related projects. Thus, the FEIR lacks substantial evidence to find that cumulative impacts would be less-than-significant.

VI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

TO APPROVE THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
The Project requires approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. But the City lacks substantial evidence to support the Subdivision Map Act’s required findings, which require the City to find that a proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan/specific plan, and does not have any detrimental environmental or public health effects.155 The purpose of the Map Act is to regulate and control design and improvement of subdivisions with proper consideration for their relation to adjoining areas, to require subdividers to install streets and other improvements, to prevent fraud and exploitation, and to protect both the public and purchasers of subdivided lands.156 Before approving a tentative map, the Map Act requires the agency’s legislative body to make findings that the proposed 152 Id.
153 DEIR, Appendices PDF, pg. 2056 (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the Project would cause a significant noise impact if it would result in “[g]eneration of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.”). 154 DEIR, pg. 5.5-30.
155 Gov Code §§66473.5, 66474. 156 Pratt v. Adams (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 602.

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
subdivision map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan and any specific plan.157 The Map Act also requires the agency’s legislative body to deny a proposed subdivision map in any of the following circumstances:158
(a) the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

Here, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan’s Housing Element because it proposes a nonresidential project on a site rezoned to implement the Housing Element, in conflict with Housing Element policies. Moreover, the FEIR and Staff Report fail to analyze consistency with policies in the Housing Element, erroneously claiming they are inapplicable to the Project. The failure to analyze the Project’s consistency with these policies means that the Planning Commission’s finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan is not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, CARECA’s experts have provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project would result in potentially significant public health and environmental impacts. As a result, the Planning Commission cannot make the requisite Map Act findings.

VII. CONCLUSION
As is explained herein, the FEIR’s analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts.

As a consequence of these impacts and the Project’s land use inconsistencies, the City cannot make the requisite findings under CEQA to certify the FEIR or under 157 Gov Code § 66473.5. 158 Gov. Code § 66474 (emphasis added).

May 13, 2025

7624-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the City’s Municipal Code to approve the Project’s entitlements. CARE CA urges the Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachments
APM:acp

EXHIBIT A
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
May 12, 2025
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Amazon DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
Dear Mr. Marshall,
In January 2025, I reviewed trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of the proposed Amazon DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility in the City of Brea Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) dated November 2024. I made the following findings:
1) The DEIR overestimates trip generation from the previous use by failing to properly apply the trip generation equation. The corrected number is 3,908 trips per day. 2) The DEIR underestimates trip generation from the proposed use by:
a. failing to account for employee mid-day trips and employee drop off and pick up trips, and
b. assuming a number of delivery vans than is less than half the number of delivery van parking spaces – it is conservative to assume that all these spaces will eventually be used.
3) With these changes, estimated trip generation from the proposed project to 4,450 daily trips, i.e. 542 more trips per day than the previous use – versus the DEIR’s assertion than the proposed project would generate fewer trips.
4) The DEIR improperly omits delivery van and Flex VMT. 5) When delivery van and Flex VMT is included, and trip generation is adjusted, the project is estimated to generate 51,716 more daily VMT than the previous use – versus the DEIR’s assertion than the proposed project would generate fewer trips. 6) The trip generation and VMT estimates should be corrected, and significant VMT impacts should be mitigated.

Now I also have reviewed the responses to these comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for this project dated May 2025, and the Staff Report prepared for the May 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting and make the following additional findings. 2 The DEIR Overestimates Trip Generation from the Previous Use – In my January comments, I noted that The DEIR falsely states: “Average trip rate used per person was lower than the ITE Trip Generation fitted curve equation, which equates to a more conservative number of trips.” (DEIR, Appendix F, Appendices PDF p. 2120 of 2391) In fact, applying the equation results in a lower number of daily trips. 3,908, or 910 fewer trips per day. The FEIR acknowledges this error and states:

Please note that the footnote under Table 3 in Appendix F: VMT Assessment incorrectly stated that the average rate value was lower that the fitted curve value. This is corrected in Section

3.0, Revisions and Clarifications to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. A. (FEIR, p. 2-208 – 2-209) Despite this correction to the text, the FEIR improperly continues to use the higher number, stating:

Although the fitted curve equation would result in a lower trip generation, as stated above, the average trip generation rate was used to estimate traffic from the prior Bank of America use because it is embedded in the OCTAM model. (FEIR, p. 2-209) As I explained in detail in my January comments, the Institute of Transportation (“ITE”) guidance for applying its trip generation rates clearly recommends the use of the curve in this case, which results in the lower number of 3,908.

The contention that the higher rate is “embedded in the OCTAM model” is false. The OCTAM model includes only very generic land use categories (retail, service and other) and does not incorporate or replace the ITE trip generation rates.1 The OCTAM model had no role in estimating trip generation for either the previous use or the proposed use.

The DEIR Likely Underestimates Trip Generation from the Proposed Use – My January comments noted that the amount of parking planned for “delivery van spaces” was significantly larger than required to support the number of delivery van trips given in the DEIR. The FEIR implies that there will be more delivery van trips during peak periods, stating:
. . . the additional parking alleviates the minimal time periods when more deliveries may be necessary than normal operations (e.g., holidays and Prime Days). (FEIR, p. 2-209) The Staff Report has addressed this issue in a Draft Condition of Approval:

At peak operations, the maximum number of line haul trucks and delivery vans shall not exceed the maximum numbers mentioned in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report. Upon request, the Applicant shall provide the City Planner with the truck/van dispatch log or similar documentation within 30 business days to demonstrate compliance. (PDF p. 33 of 97)
My January comments also noted that:

The table assumes that each employee will make 2 trips per day, but the average trip rate per employee actually will be higher than 2.0 because some employees will make mid-day trips out and back, and some employees will be dropped off and picked up. If the 3.33 average trips per employee rate applied in the DEIR to the previous use is 1 https://octa.net/pdf/Appendix%20F%20-%20Subarea%20Modeling%20Guidelines.pdf 3 applied to the proposed use, the result is 1,918 personal vehicle trips per day, i.e. 766 more than assumed in the DEIR.

The FEIR response is that estimating that employees will account for more than 2 trips per day is “speculative.” (FEIR, p. 2-209) However, the DEIR does this for the previous use. It makes no sense to apply 3.33 average trips per employee per day for the previous use, but only 2.0 average trips per employee per day to the proposed use. These numbers must be consistent, and the appropriate number is certainly higher than 2.0.

The DEIR Improperly Omits Delivery Van and Flex VMT – My January 2025 comments stated:

The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed facility would represent growth in Amazon’s overall employment in the area. Total deliveries can be assumed to grow in proportion to employment. This increase in total deliveries will increase delivery van and Flex VMT in the area, and this increase must be accounted for somewhere. It should be included in the DEIR VMT estimate.

The FEIR fails to address this point, but continues to calculate VMT as if no additional trips were being made.

The FEIR also falsely claims that delivery van and Flex VMT is accounted for in the OCTAM model because it “accounts for all trips associated with employee travel.” (FEIR, p. 2-209) This is false. The OCTAM model is intended to account for commuting travel and mid-day trips made by onsite employees – not delivery trips.

The DEIR Underestimates Net Project VMT – My January comments stated:

The VMT analysis should be revised with proper accounting of delivery van and FLEX VMT and more realistic assumptions throughout. The revised VMT estimate should be tested against the City’s VMT significance thresholds (DEIR Appendices, p. 2121). f there are significant VMT impacts, they must be mitigated.

The Condition of Approval would cap trip generation at a lower level than I calculated, but still at a higher level than given in the DEIR because of the other deficiencies I have documented. The DEIR overestimates trip generation from the previous land use and its related VMT, underestimates trip generation from the proposed land use and its related VMT, and improperly omits delivery van and FLEX VMT. These three issues combine for a large discrepancy in the estimated net project VMT. 4 The table below illustrates how these corrections would affect project VMT.

The DEIR table reproduced above shows daily VMT 19,842 lower than the previous use, but even with the trip maximum COA the corrected table here shows daily VMT 15,461 higher than the previous use.

The VMT analysis should be revised with proper accounting of delivery van and FLEX VMT and more realistic assumptions throughout. The revised VMT estimate should be tested against the City’s VMT significance thresholds (DEIR Appendices, p. 2121). If there are significant VMT impacts, they must be mitigated.

The Air Quality Analysis Should be Redone with Updated Trip Generation and VMT Numbers - The VMT numbers in the air quality analysis should be adjusted to match the revised trip generation and VMT estimates.

Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
revised Table 4 count trips prior VMT new VMT notes
Previous Land Use
Bank of America 1,447 3,908 34,781 - reduced in proportion to trips Delivery Station
Personal vehicles 576 1,918 - 34,765 add non-commute trips delivery vans 1,514 12,506 remove credit
FLEX 97 194 1,758 remove credit
Total 673 2,036 49,029
Difference from previous 14,247

EXHIBIT B
WI #25-001.16
May 12, 2025
Aidan P. Marshall Esquire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project FEIR
City of Brea, CA
Review and Comment on Response to Comments
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the Responses to Comments (RTC) in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated May 2025, prepared by Michael Baker. Ms. Deborah Jue previously provided comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Appendix E (Noise Assessment) in January 2025. Topical Response 3 and RTC 17-6, 17-13, 17-22 through 17-24, and 17-35 through 17- 42, pertaining to noise analysis, are largely unresponsive to Ms. Jue’s comments and do not address potentially significant operational impacts. In addition to our previous comments, we note that the construction analysis underestimates potentially significant impacts.

Item #1 Baseline Noise is Not Properly Established
The previous comments on the DEIR show that the study failed to establish a proper baseline, as it relies on four short-term measurements taken in the late morning hours. RTC 17-6 argues that these measurements were primarily utilized to analyze how anticipated construction levels would influence the existing environment and further argues that they are sufficient for since construction activities are restricted to daytime hours. Construction hours set by the City of Brea Municipal Code are 7 a.m. to 7p.m. [DEIR App. E, pg. 20]. The 15-minute intervals comprise 2% of this 12-hour period and neither the DEIR nor RTC 17-6 address how typical these data are for the rest of the daytime hours and if they represent the quietest conditions. While the DEIR does add an average of the measured levels (68.7 dBA) to the predicted construction levels, it fails to evaluate “substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels,” as required by CEQA Guidelines. The construction predictions are instead compared to an absolute FTA Manual1 threshold of 80 dBA. This is discussed further in Item #4.

RTC 17-6 further argues that the short-term measurements are sufficient because they were supplemented by calculated transportation noise levels from road segments in the Project area. As 1 1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123 0.pdf

WILSON IHRIG
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
RTC Responses

Ms. Jue explains in previous comments, the DEIR provides no validation to verify that these modeled levels are accurate. RTC 17-13 claims that “CEQA doesn’t require absolute precision in modeling result,” but fails to explain why the measured levels along Valencia Avenue are up to 10 dB above the modeled CNEL. Even if nighttime and evening levels are in the mid-40s, baseline noise levels would have to be a lot lower than 68.7 dBA for much of the day to result in a CNEL of 58 to 65 dBA (as shown in DEIR Table 5-3). RTC 17-6 asserts that the CNEL evening and nighttime penalties address 24-hour operations, but clearly typical nighttime levels cannot be established from the modeled traffic data without more information.

As Ms. Jue previously pointed out the analysis relies on the outdated FHWA-RD_77-108. RTC 17-13 incorrectly claims that this is an industry standard. In fact, this model was officially discontinued by FHWA more than 20 years ago.2 The TNM model differs from the old STAMINA model in that it contains not only a “tire/pavement noise” component, but also an “engine/exhaust” noise component, as outlined in the TNM User’s Guide Appendix F.3 Exhaust noise is an important contribution to overall noise from heavy trucks and is modeled at a height of 12 feet above the pavement. Predictions for all vehicle types tend to be 1-3 dB higher in TNM than in the STAMINA model, depending on speed. The FEIR analysis may be underpredicting traffic noise levels, especially exhaust noise from trucks at upper floors of the residences overlooking the road over the existing mason wall.

Item #2 Nighttime Trucks Would Cause a Significant Impact On Sleep The previous comments on the DEIR show that the study failed to consider sleep disturbance from nighttime truck passbys. Topic Response 3 argues that the predicted CNEL from the traffic analysis is sufficient for evaluating truck noise, because the 10-dB penalty for noise between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. reflects a greater potential for sleep disturbance. The topical response asserts that CEQA relies on established thresholds based on scientific studies and health-based criteria and incorrectly claims that regulatory thresholds always look at overall exposure and not “isolated instances of noise events.”
As noted in Ms. Jue’s prior comments, there are numerous scientific studies that look at the effects of single noise events on sleep disturbance. A 2018 review article by Basner and McGuire, titled WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep and published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (cited in the previous comments Figure 1), uses data from two fairly large studies of sleep disturbance due to road traffic to estimate the effect of single traffic noise events on sleep.4 Lmax levels used in Figure 1 describe the highest “instantaneous” noise level during a specified time period, caused by short duration noises such as a truck passby, pneumatic brake air release, backup alarm, etc. As explained by FHWA-HEP-17-053, the maximum sound level is important in judging the interference caused by a noise event with common activities. 5 Some local noise ordinances impose a
limit on the Lmax. Roadway noise is normally exempt from noise ordinances since vehicle noise is 2 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRONMENT/noise/regulations and guidance/tmn25mem.cfm 3 file:///C:/Users/ani/Downloads/dot 8920 DS1.pdf
4 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018, 15, 519; doi:10.3390/ijerph15030519 5 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/sound descr.cfm

WILSON IHRIG
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
RTC Responses

subject to the California Vehicle Code, which already limits noise from vehicles to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 ft for vehicles traveling more than 45 mph.6
RTC 17-23 incorrectly claims that the previous comments compare truck passby levels to the City exterior noise standard. While it is not clear from the Municipal Code language that this limit does not apply to all mobile sources7, as asserted by RTC 17-23, Ms. Jue does make clear that reliance on an hourly Leq as the significance threshold is inadequate to assess the significance of truck noise on sleep disturbance and explains the need for an Lmax criteria.

RTC 17-23 then incorrectly compares the levels presented in the DEIR site operational analysis with the Badner sleep disturbance probability chart. As acknowledged in RTC 17-39, the operational noise SoundPLAN model does not address noise from off site vehicles along Valencia Avenue, as they arrive and depart the facility. Using an Lmax reference level of 88 dBA at 50 ft and 50 mph for heavy trucks, based on current California Vehicle Code8 noise emission requirements for vehicles and building shell attenuation assumptions used in the DEIR, a single truck along Valencia at 65 feet from the nearest residence would produce an Lmax of 74 dBA with the windows open and 66 dBA with the windows closed.

Finally, RTC 17-39 asserts that “the Project does not introduce a new type of noise source to the area, but rather contributes incrementally to the existing truck traffic.” While the Project does not add a new type of noise source, the tables in Attachment B of the Noise Assessment clearly show that nighttime heavy truck traffic is expected to be 8 times the existing volume with 3-4 new trucks passing by sleeping residents every hour. This increases the probability of sleep disturbance.

Item #3 RTC analysis is Erroneous, and Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Would be Potentially Significant
The previous comments on the DEIR show that the study failed to include mechanical noise in the operational noise analysis. RTC 17-24 and RTC 17-40 claim that the estimate provided by Ms. Jue is speculative. Ms. Jue’s prediction used standard industry data, and it was based on the dimensions of the planned warehouse, industry standard air flow requirements, and a typical 25-ton package rooftop HVAC unit (with a sound power level of 95 dBA). In the absence of more detailed information in the DEIR, these were reasonable basic assumptions to estimate HVAC noise levels from warehouse operations, and they were not speculative. RTC 17-24 suggests using a reference sound pressure level of 69.5 dBA at 10 feet for a smaller unit, which would result in 41.5 dBA at 250 feet. RTC 17-24 then incorrectly uses this level to represent the HVAC noise on site, assuming only a single 12.5-ton unit on the roof of a 181,500 square-foot warehouse. Even 9 or 10 of these smaller units would result in levels above the City nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dBA. RTC 17-40 mentions that modern mechanical equipment may include features such as acoustic barriers or low-noise fan designs. The EIR must show whether feasible noise mitigation would be sufficient. The potential height of such barriers must be identified to confirm their feasibility. If noise attenuation features are expected to 6 Caltrans TENS page 3-22
7 The code explicitly excludes mobile sources associated with agricultural operation and pest control. 8 VEH division 12 chapter 5, Article 2.5; 27204 or medium trucks; 27207 for heavy trucks (with a governor/engine brake)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=12.&chapter=5.&lawCode=VEH&article=

2.5 WILSON IHRIG
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
RTC Responses

be used, the analysis should clearly identify the specific measures and reduction the Project is committing to as mitigation.

Item #4 Construction Noise Levels Would be Potentially Significant RTC 17-22 incorrectly states that their analysis is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to assess substantial increases in ambient noise levels because it takes into account the City of Brea municipal code. As acknowledged in the response, the City does not provide either an absolute or increase based threshold for construction noise. CEQA Guidelines state that standards can be established from “the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies” [DEIR App. E, pg. 22]. RTC-22 further argues that construction noise should be differentiated from operational noise due to its temporary nature, while the CEQA guidelines clearly state that the Project should analyze “temporary or permanent increase” and makes no distinction in the approach.

The DEIR compares estimated construction noise levels to the FTA Manual threshold of 80 dBA. The cited FTA document is a guidance document, and it explicitly discourages projects against using its absolute noise criteria values without consideration of local conditions [FTA page 179, see Figure 1 below]. Construction noise levels may cause adverse community impact, even if levels are below the 80 dBA FTA threshold, which would allow for up to 19-dB increase in levels over the quietest measured ambient.

Figure 1 FTA Section on Construction Noise and Vibration (page 179) RTC 17-22 then claims that construction would result in a 1.8-dB increase over the existing noise environment. As discussed above, the existing noise environment was not properly established and ambient levels during construction hours may be quieter than the 15-minute intervals selected for short-term measurements.

The predicted levels shown in Table 5-2 of the Noise Assessment appear to contain errors. The report indicates the use of FTA Manual methodology (DEIR App. E, pg. 22) but deviates from both the general and detailed FTA construction noise assessment procedures. Their assessment utilizes equipment usage factors, but also uses the acoustical center of the project to calculate distances.

A general FTA construction noise assessment uses the Project's central point to calculate distances for construction noise levels. However, Attachment C of the Noise Assessment shows that the DEIR analysis adjusts noise levels using RCNM usage factors. This represents an incorrect application of the general FTA construction vibration assessment methodology, as a general FTA construction noise assessment necessitates a usage factor of 100%. Applying a usage factor of 40% to a general

WILSON IHRIG
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
RTC Responses

Figure 2 Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment (FTA page 18)
Conclusions
The FEIR Responses to Comments are largely unresponsive to Deborah Jue’s previous comments on the DEIR and fail to address potentially significant operational and construction impacts.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Ani Toncheva
Senior Consultant

ANI TONCHEVA
Senior Consultant
Since joining the firm in 2011, Ani has conducted analyses for transit systems, vibration sensitive research facilities, public infrastructure, construction, and other environmental noise. She has contributed to literature reviews, including research on current practices of historical preservation. She has extensive experience working on construction projects in New York City and is well versed in local noise codes.

Education
 B.A., Physics; Bard College, New York
Professional Associations
 Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants (NCAC)  Member, Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
 Board Member, Transportation Research Forum (TRF), NY Chapter and International board Research Paper
 NCHRP 25-25, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects
Relevant Experience
BART Berryessa Station Transit Noise Impact and Mitigation, San Jose, CA Assisted with noise predictions and barrier design recommendations.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Green Line Extension (GLX), Boston, MA Lead analyst on noise predictions and barrier design.

RTD Eagle P3 Northwest Corridor Noise and Impacts, Denver, CO Assisted with data analysis and helped prepare final technical report.

Alameda CTC, I-880 Interchange Improvements Project (Whipple Road-Industrial Southwest and Industrial Parkway West), Hayward, CA Project Manager for traffic noise study.

Alameda CTC, I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements, Berkeley, CA Project Manager for traffic noise study.

Millennium Bulk Terminal, Longview, WA Prepared noise analysis for the project’s NEPA and SEPA environmental impact statements.

Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Haskin Hill Sanctuary, Loma Mar, CA Prepared an environmental study for a planned animal sanctuary in Loma Mar.

Analog (ArtX) Hotel, Palo Alto, CA Prepared preliminary basis of design guidelines for a new fivestory boutique hotel in a residential area.

Sunnydale Block 3A & 3B Mixed-Use Residential Development, San Francisco, CA Prepared a CCR Title 24 Noise Study Report for two, mixed-use, 5-story buildings.

WILSON IHRIG
Ani Toncheva – Page 2
Columbia University Medical Center Medical and Graduate Education Building, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey and performed attended noise measurements during preliminary construction work.

Hudson Yards Tower C Foundations and Utilities, New York, NY Conducted a baseline noise survey prior to construction work including a combination of long-term unattended and short-term attended noise measurements.

PANYNJ Lincoln Tunnel Helix Rehabilitation, NJ Assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program at three locations.

MSK 74th Street, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise survey, assisted in developing construction noise control and mitigation plan, and implemented a long-term noise monitoring program at two locations.

NY MTA No. 7 Line Subway Extension Ventilation Facility Construction, New York, NY The project involved mining and lining of two shafts and construction of a 2-story ventilation building.

NY MTA ESA/LIRR Grand Central Terminal Fit-Out, New York, NY Prepared the Contractor’s noise and vibration control plan updates for fit-out work conducted underground at the Grand Central Terminal Suburban Level.

San Francisco Planning Department, Alameda Street Wet Weather Tunnel and Folsom Area Sewer Improvement, San Francisco, CA Noise and vibration analysis for Folsom Area stormwater infrastructure improvements.

World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center, New York, NY Conducted baseline noise surveys, assisted in developing construction noise control plans, and implementing a remote long-term noise monitoring program.
50 Pine Street Condominiums, New York, NY
Project involved evaluating mechanical noise at residential dwelling units for NYC noise code Uptown Newport, Newport Beach, CA
Evaluation of noise levels due to mechanical equipment at adjacent property.

EXHIBIT C
1 May 11, 2025

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Comments On Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, Brea, California, SCH NO. 2023070241
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the materials related to the City of Brea’s (the City) FEIR1 for the above referenced project.

Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the FEIR. Any lack of comment on specific items should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.

Project Description:

According to the Project Description,
2 “The Applicant proposes
to demolish the existing three-story 637,503-square-foot closed Bank of America office building and surface parking lot to construct a 181,500- square-foot single-story square feet of ancillary office space, on an approximate 31.6-acre site. The Project would provide 1,065 surface vehicle parking spaces (consisting of 304 automobile spaces, 757 delivery van spaces, and 4 line-haul truck trailer spaces), 180 ancillary van loading spaces (90 loading spaces and 90 staging spaces), and 13 Utility Tractor Rig loading spaces to support facility operations. 1 Michael Baker International. 2025. Final Environmental Impact Report DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project. SCH.

No. 2023070241. Prepared by Michael Baker International. Prepared for City of Brea. Dated May 2025. 2 Michael Baker International. 2024. Draft Environmental Impact Report DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project. SCH.

No. 2023070241. Prepared by Michael Baker International. Prepared for City of Brea. pg 1-1 through 1-2.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
EMAIL
[email protected]
2 The Project would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to support delivery of packages to customer locations. The Applicant anticipates a maximum of 31-line haul trucks delivering packages to the Project Site each day, primarily between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. The packages are removed from the line haul trucks, sorted by delivery routes, placed onto movable racks, and staged for dispatch. Delivery Service Partner (DSP) and Amazon Flex drivers would work shifts between the hours of 9:20 a.m. and 9:50 p.m. to deliver customer packages.

The Applicant anticipates that on a daily basis, there would be a total of 231 associates, managers, and dispatchers who work within the facility; 345 van drivers; and 97 Flex drivers.1 In order to fulfill the operational need, the Applicant anticipates that a maximum of 800 workers would be hired at the facility; however, the total daily workers onsite would not exceed 673 workers.

The Project Site is bounded by Valencia Avenue to the east, Nasa Street to the south, Surveyor Avenue to the west, and adjacent industrial and office uses to the north. Surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include existing light industrial, office, and surface parking uses to the west, south, and north. To the east and south-southeast, across Valencia Avenue, is La Floresta, a masterplanned horizontal mixed-use community comprised of single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses.
3 The Project Site is currently occupied by an existing three-story office building containing approximately 637,503 square feet of floor area and a 1,949-stall surface parking lot.
3 Ibid pg 3-1.
3 Figure 1: Regional Location Map And Aerial Photograph of Project Site Construction of the Project would begin with site clearance and demolition of the existing buildings, followed by grading and excavation to a depth of approximately 21 feet below existing grade. It is estimated that approximately 25,680 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the Project Site during the site preparation/grading phase. The building foundation would then be laid, followed by building construction, paving/concrete installation, and landscape installation. Project construction is anticipated to occur over a 24-month period and be completed in mid-2027.

According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. and dated September 2024 (hereafter termed the AQ Analysis), the “operational air pollutant emissions were based on the site acreage and building dimensions provided by the Project Site plans and daily trip numbers provided in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Report prepared for the Project (NV5 Engineers & Consultants 2024).

The VMT Report estimates that the Project’s maximum daily vehicle generation would consist of 62 heavy duty truck trips, 1,152 passenger car trips, and 690 van trips. The average van trips length was taken from the Project’s VMT Report (NV5 Engineers & Consultants 2024). The average truck trip length is calculated at 52 miles, which represents the average distance between the Project Site and 4 the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, the Project Site and the Banning Pass, the Project Site and the San Diego County line, the Project Site and the Cajon Pass, and the Project Site and downtown Los Angeles, consistent with SCAQMD recommendation for calculating heavy-duty truck emissions.”4 The FEIR noted in response to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) comments that the staff was concerned with the cumulative air quality impacts resulting from the increased concentration of air toxics in the Region5, that the additional risk from operational emissions of the Project was a function of the number of daily truck trips and that the actual number of truck trips under Existing + Project + Future conditions is not known.6 Although the calculated risk was based on an assumed 951 heavy duty trick trips daily (primary source of DPM for the Project), the City’s analysis claimed that the risk from exposure to DPM associated with the Project would be below the SCAQMD’s significance threshold.

The FEIR determined that the Regional air quality thresholds would not be exceeded during the construction or operational phase of the Project. After a careful review of the supporting documents it is clear that the FEIR’s assertion that there are not significant air quality impacts from the Project is not supported by the data contained in the FEIR. There are clear flaws in the FEIR’s analysis of air quality issues that must be corrected in a revised FEIR.

Specific Comments

1. Topical Response Number 1: Existing Baseline
Topical Response Number 1 states that from the Bank of America call center and administrative offices which were vacated in December 2022 (approximately 3 years ago) is the appropriate baseline measure for emissions from the Project. Since these emissions are removed in the final analysis from the analysis of impacts, setting the baseline is critical in the discussion of the project. While the Project application was filled with the City on May 31, 2022 and the Bank of America site serviced a population of 1,447 persons, tas noted by SCAQMD, the City’s reliance on 4 ECORP. 2024. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project.

Pg 22
5 FEIR. Comment 10-3 (pg 65-66 of 610).
6 FEIR. Pg 66 of 610.
5 Bank of America’s operations as the Project’s baseline is inconsistent with the fact that Bank of America vacated the building before the Project’s Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was released.

Just a few months after e the filing of the application, the perceived baseline within the affected community was reset. The City should no longer assume that the abandoned site has any emissions and the EIR must evaluate the sudden increase in emissions from the site (along with traffic impacts, etc…) as noticeable changes in baseline conditions.

As SCAQMD noted in its comments on the Project, “Relying on an incorrect and unrealistic baseline compromises the accuracy of the DEIR’s air quality analysis, including the operational regional significance analysis, localized significance analysis, and greenhouse gas emissions assessments. For example, the incorrect baseline includes trips from the prior Bank of America office use, which is 4,818 daily vehicle trips.14 The Proposed Project is expected to generate 2,098 daily vehicle trips. The FEIR therefore states that the Net Daily Trips is -2,720. For context, Figure 2 provides a screenshot from the FEIR of how the net daily trips was arrived at for the Proposed Project.

This results in an underestimation of the Proposed Project’s estimated air quality emissions.15, 16, 17 To ensure the accuracy of the air quality analysis, I concur with SCAQMD’s recommendaton the baseline condition be recalculated to reflect the building’s unoccupied status at the time of the NOP filing.”7 The City’s response to SCAQMD was to cite that CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 authorizes the City, as the lead agency, to define the existing baseline by referencing historic conditions. Even if the City had the discretion to choose the baseline, which is unclear, relying on an emission set from data that is 3 years old from conditions that no longer exist is an unsupported assumption. Rather, the City should analyze the emissions based on the current conditions or choose to use a baseline based on a combined data set that includes both the abandoned site conditions and the historic uses. The City must disclose accurate baseline conditions in a revised FEIR.

2. Response To Comment 10-5 – Use Of Cold Storage At The Site And TRUs.

The City’s response to the SCAQMD’s valid concern that cold storage may be installed onsite and the use of transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) needs a fuller explanation. Amazon is involved, through its Amazon Fresh program, an online and physical grocery store, offers same-day 7 SCAQMD. 2024. Letter From SCAQMD to City of Brea - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2023070241). Dated 12/20/2024. Pg 4. 6 delivery and free pickup. The closest Amazon Fresh center is located at 1610 W Imperial Hwy Suite 200 in La Habra (approximately 8 miles from the Project Site). Given the distance to the existing site and the Project location, it is reasonable to assume that the center could be used as an Amazon Fresh store, should Amazon want to expand directly into Brea. Requesting that the City evaluate the Project for the use as a cold storage center is therefore not unreasonable.

TRU are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including truck vans, semi-truck trailers, and shipping containers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines diesel exhaust as a complex mixture of inorganic and organic compounds that exists in gaseous, liquid, and solid phases. CARB and U.S. EPA identify 40 components of the exhaust as suspected human carcinogens, including formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzo[a]pyrene.

Given that the DEIR did not preclude the development of the warehouses as refrigerated warehouses, and the FEIR is relying on an assumption that the Project description is accurate, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that TRUs are a foreseeable project component. The emissions from the foreseeable cold storage warehouses and TRU emissions have not been quantified in the Air Quality Analysis of the FEIR, underestimating the foreseeable health risk to the community as well as the associated GHG emissions from the operation of the TRUs. The City must assess these impacts in a revised FEIR since it the Project description allows for the potential future use of TRUs onsite.

3. Response To Comment 10-06 – Stationary Sources
The City claims that the Project does not propose the use of back-up generators, fire water pumps, boilers, spray booths, or other new stationary or portable air toxic sources. The City then asserts that the SCAQMD is not a Responsible Agency under CEQA.

Under the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines Guidance, the District may allow a new stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled Cl engine (> 50 hp) to operate up to 100 hours per year for maintenance and testing purposes on a sitespecific basis, provided the diesel PM emission rate is less than or equal to 0.01 g/bhp-hr. In addition to the testing emissions the air quality analysis in the DEIR must include the substantial increase in operational emissions from BUGs in the Air Basin due to unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events. Nowhere in the City’s analysis of the operational emissions of stationary equipment (i.e., fire pumps and or BUGs) or 7 emissions from those sources included in the CalEEMOD analysis.

For any system requiring permitting from the SCAQMD (e.g., for stationary sources such as back-up generators or fire pumps), the SCAQMD is the primary Responsible Agency in the Southern California Air Basin. This failure to include the emissions from the fire pumps and BUGS are a significant unaddressed emission source for the Project. The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete and must be corrected in a revised EIR for the Project.

4. Response To Comment 17-21: Use Of Tier 4 Or Better Rated Construction Equipment Will Be Utilized During The Construction Phase Of The Project.

In the City’s response to comment 17-21, they assert that “Since all construction equipment used for the Project would be model year 2017 or newer, and engines manufactured after 2014 meet Tier 4 final standards, the emissions analysis conducted using CalEEMod appropriately assumed Tier 4 equipment.” But the MMRP and conditions of approval do not require Tier 4 Final equipment. And the FEIR does not identify the general contractor, provide any documentation that the general contractor only uses Tier 4 Final equipment, or account for the possibility that a different general contractor may be used. As a result, construction emissions would be much greater if lower-tiered equipment is used.

As a reminder there are currently two versions of Tier 4: Tier 4 interim equipment and Tier 4 final equipment. Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment. 8 Figure 2: EPA Nonroad Compression Ignition Exhaust Emission Standards For Tier 4 interim engines greater than 50 hp and less than 75 hp, PM emissions are ten times (10 x) greater than PM emissions from the same sized Tier 4 final equipment. For Tier 4 interim engines greater than 75 hp the NOx emission are eight and one-half times (8.5 x) higher than the same sized Tier 4 final equipment.

12 tons of DPM that are not accounted for in the City’s Air Quality Analysis and the Health Risk Assessment of the operational emissions onsite. The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete and must be corrected in a revised EIR for the Project.

6. The City’s HRA Uses Exposure Factors That Are Lower Than The Most Conservative Analysis Proposed In OEHHA’s Toxic Hotspots Analysis Guidance.

According to the AQ Analysis8, DPM concentrations and associated health risk associated with both construction off-road equipment and construction haul trucks during construction, as well as heavy-duty and medium-duty trucks for Project operations, were modeled using the HARP2 modeling program provided by CARB, with regulatory default settings, to perform the dispersion and health risk modeling for this analysis. It was assumed in the AQ Analysis that as a project design feature, the Project will operate Tier 4 equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower during construction activities.

The algorithms used in the HARP2 program are outlined in the OEHHA’s Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual9 and presented as equations 1 and 2 below. To calculate the inhalation cancer risk for any receptor in the modeling domain dose of the chemical in air (Doseair) is calculated from the annual concentration of the carcinogen (Cair). The exposure concentration is then multiplied by the breathing rate per body weight (BR/BW), inhalation absorption factor (A), the exposure frequency (days per 365 days) and a conversion factor of 10-6 (micrograms to milligrams, liters to cubic meters). This annual average concentration is multiplied by the cancer slope (CPF) for the chemical along with the appropriate age sensitivity factor (ASF) the exposure duration (ED) and then divided by the averaging time (AT) and all multiplied by the frequency at home (FAH).

1. 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∗ {𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵/𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵} ∗ 𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∗ 10−6

2. 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅 𝑖𝑖ℎ = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝐹𝐹
8 ECORP. 2024. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project.

Pg 23
9 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Technical Support for Exposure Assessment.pg 5-24. 13 According to the AQ Analysis, OEHHA recommends the following FAH values: from the third trimester to age <2 years, 85 percent of time is spent at home; from age 2 through <16 years, 72 percent of time is spent at home; from age 16 years and greater, 73 percent of time is spent at home. 10 The
AQ Analysis fails to note that on page 8-5 of the Toxic Hot Spots manual, OEHHA notes that Facilities with any school within the 1×10-6 (or greater) isopleth should use FAH = 1 for the child age groups (3rd Trimester, 0<2 years, and 2<16 years).

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include residences across Valencia Avenue, approximately 116 feet (37 meters) from the Project Site Additionally, Olinda Elementary School is located approximately 920 feet northwest, and Brea Sports Park is located approximately 520 feet north for the Project Site. Table 2-10 of the AQ Analysis shows that using the default values of the FAH listed in the OEHHA manual, the risk at the Olinda Elementary School and Brea Sports Park fall within the 1 in 1,000,000 risk threshold. To be consistent with guidance from OEHHA, the City should recalculate using the FAH of 1 to ensure that the risk is accurately assessed. The resulting cancer risk for the maximum exposed individual receptor (MEIR) would increase by at least 18% (from 4.61 in 1,000,000 to 5.42 in 1,000,000) for the construction phase HRA. This is an important difference in the HRA results given the response from the City regarding the impact from the SCAQMD’s Working Group Number 6 (WG#6) on the significance threshold for cancer risk evaluation. A cancer risk of 5.42 in 1,000,000 would exceed at least two of the scenarios evaluated in the SCAQMD’s WG#6.11 The City should reanalyze the results of the HRA using the FAH of 1 and compile the results in a revised FEIR.
10 Ibid. pg 40
11 Note (from City Response to Comment 10-3: “Per WG 6, areas experiencing a background excess cancer risk in the 37th percentile would result in a drop of the Cancer Risk Threshold from 10 in one million to 7 in one million. Step 2 of the WG 6 flow diagram is to determine if there are 951 daily heavyduty truck trips or more that would traverse the truck route to the freeway with Existing + Project + Future volumes. If there are more than 951 heavy duty truck trips, then the Cancer Risk Threshold would again drop from 7 in one million to 5 in one million. Step 3 of WG 6 is to determine if the Project is located in a SB 535 disadvantaged community or an AB 617 community. If the project is within such an area, then the threshold would be reduced further to 3 in one million.” 14 7. The Cumulative Air Quality Analysis Identifies Two Major Projects Within The Immediate Vicinity Of The Project Site. The City Should Calculate The Cumulative Emission Impacts On The Residents Within The Vicinity Of The Project Site.

As shown in Figure 4-3 of the DEIR, two related development projects have been identified within the vicinity of the Project Site for inclusion in the cumulative impact analysis for this EIR:
• Related Project No. 1 is identified by the City as PR 2023-08 and proposes a light industrial, warehouse building at 3200 Nasa Street on the northwest corner of Nasa Street and Surveyor Avenue on a site that is currently developed as a surface parking lot. This development is located immediately west of the Project Site and was approved on July 1, 2024.
• Related Project No. 2 consists of the Brea 265 Specific Plan development on a 262-acre site generally bounded by Lambert Road/Carbon Canyon Road to the north, Carbon Canyon Regional Park to the east, Birch Street and Rose Drive to the south, and residential uses to the west. The Brea 265 Specific Plan proposes up to 1,100 residential units, parks and recreational amenities, open space, and right-of-way improvements. This development is located north and northeast of the Project Site.

A conceptual project located northeast of the Project Site at 3350 E. Birch Street, which proposes the demolition of an existing office building and construction of an 86,145-square-foot warehouse building, was submitted to the City with a request for preliminary comments. However, the FEIR states that any project that requests preliminary plan review is not considered an active project and is not included in the cumulative impact analysis. 15 Figure 4: Location of Related Projects (Figure 4-3 From DEIR) According to data from the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC (presented on the Warehouse CITY website)12, within 5 km of the Project Site there are 11 existing warehouses covering 2,775,000 square feet. There is one more vacant warehouse (totaling 225,000 sq ft). The existing projects within 5 kilometers (km) of the Project site generate 2,000 daily truck trips, producing 2.8 lbs of DPM per day and 312 lbs of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day. 12 Warehouse City v. 1.21. Accessed January 15, 2025. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ 16 Figure 5: Warehouses Near Project Site
According to the CalEEMod analysis, the Project would contribute 0.05 tons of DPM (this would be 100 lbs per year or an average of 0.27 lbs per day).
17 This would effectively add ten percent to the existing risk from DPM being released in the community from warehouses and would be a significant impact for the area. The City must consider these significant impacts in a revised FEIR for the Project.
18 Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed based in the FEIR. A revised EIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.

Sincerely,
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.

Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.

This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.

Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.

Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.

Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.

DJT4 - BREA 275 VALENCIA AVE BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823 VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE N NOT TO SCALE E BIRCH ST E IMPERIAL HWY E LAMBERT RD VALENCIA AVE S KRAEMER BLVD DESCRIPTION OF WORK SCOPE OF WORK UNDER THIS PERMIT: T.B.D. GENERAL CONTRACTOR 410 TERRY AVE. N AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC SEATTLE, WA 98109-5210 OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BREA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: LOTS 15, 16, 17 AND 18 OF TRACT NO. 8600, IN THE CITY OF BREA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 453, PAGES 41 THROUGH 45 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING FROM PORTIONS OF LOTS 16 AND 17, THAT PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET, MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE SURFACE THEREOF, BUT WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY THEREON, AS RESERVED IN A DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1, 1979 IN BOOK 13022 PAGE 1143 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE SURFACE THEREOF, WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY THEREON, AS RESERVED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 20, 1979 IN BOOK 13236, PAGE 573 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: LOTS 5, 6, 9, 10 AND 11 OF TRACT NO. 9762, IN THE CITY OF BREA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 442 PAGES 16 THROUGH 19 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE SURFACE OF THE LAND, BUT WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS SET FORTH IN DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1, 1979 IN BOOK 13022 PAGE 1143 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND IN DEED RECORDED MARCH 15, 1978 IN BOOK 12598 PAGE 441 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET, MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE CONTOUR OF THE SURFACE THEREOF, BUT WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE CONTOUR OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AS RESERVED BY MORELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1979 IN BOOK 13446, PAGE 1106 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ZONING CONFORMANCE BUILDING AND SITE HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO CURRENT BREA CITY CODE - TITLE 20 ZONING CODE. M-1 REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): M-1 REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): ALLOWABLE MAX. HEIGHT: ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: M-1 REQUIRED PARKING TOTAL STALLS: EV CAPABLE: EV CHARGING STATIONS: 50 FT 10 FT 0 FT 10 FT 20 FT 8 FT 5 FT 8 FT 60 FT 50% 236 STALLS 46 STALLS 16 STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): PROPOSED MAX. HEIGHT: PROPOSED COVERAGE AREA: PROPOSED SITE AREA: PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED PARKING AUTOMOBILE STALLS: DELIVERY VAN STALLS: TRUCK TRAILER STALLS: EV CAPABLE: EV CHARGING STATIONS: 60 FT 689 FT 210 FT 152 FT 20 FT 32 FT 36 FT 14 FT 266,342 SF 1,376,504 SF 19.3% 304 STALLS 757 STALLS 4 STALLS 46 STALLS 18 STALLS MU-II REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): MU-II REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS FRONT (VALENCIA): SIDE (NASA): SIDE (INTERIOR): REAR (SURVEYOR): ALLOWABLE MAX. HEIGHT: ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: MU-II REQUIRED PARKING TOTAL STALLS: EV CAPABLE: EV CHARGING STATIONS: 0 FT 10 FT 0 FT 10 FT 20 FT 8 FT 5 FT 8 FT 60 FT 50% 0 STALLS 0 STALLS 0 STALLS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 181,500 SF, SINGLE-STORY (56'-0”) PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY AT THE SITE (THE "PROJECT"). THE PROJECT IS COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 163,350 SF OF WAREHOUSE SPACE WHERE PACKAGES WOULD BE DELIVERED BY LINE HAUL TRUCKS, SORTED, LOADED ON TO DELIVERY VANS AND DELIVERED TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATIONS. AN ADDITIONAL 18,150 SF WOULD BE USED FOR ACCESSORY OFFICE AND AMENITY SPACE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE FACILITY. THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE ONSITE EMPLOYEE AND DELIVERY VAN PARKING STALLS. SHEET INDEX CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS MAIN OCCUPANCY S-1 S 75'-0" 3 STORY 50'-4" 1 STORY

SPRINKLER

CONDITION
(TABLE 504.3)

ALLOWABLE

BUILDING HEIGHT

IN FEET
(TABLE 504.3)

ALLOWABLE

NUMBER OF

STORIES ABOVE

GRADE PLANE

PROPOSED

BUILDING

HEIGHT IN FEET

SPRINKLER

CONDITION
PROPOSED TOTAL BUILDING AREA______________________________________________________181,500 SFMOST RESTRICTIVE OCCUPANCY______________________________________________________ S-1 ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT UNLIMITED AREA ALLOWED PER 507.4 W/ AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER AND OPEN YARDS GREATER THAN 60 FEET ON ALL SIDES P 949.660.9128 10 EDELMAN IRVINE, CA 92618 TIM REED [email protected] ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEERNOAH RAMOS [email protected] P 949.660.9128 10 EDELMAN IRVINE, CA 92618 ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED · PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE M-I AND MU-II ZONES PURSUANT TO CITY OF BREA CITY CODE ("BCC") SECTION 20.408.040 · VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 2022-193 FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON THE SITE PURSUANT TO BCC SECTION 18.36 · OTHER DISCRETIONARY AND MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS THAT MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, SIGN PERMITS, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMITS CHAPTER 3 - USE & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION OCCUPANCY SECTION USE PROPOSED AREA (SF) S-1 / STORAGE (311) MAIN OCCUPANCY SEE ALLOWABLE AREA BELOW B / BUSINESS (304) SEPARATED OCCUPANCY SEE ALLOWABLE AREA BELOW A-2 / ASSEMBLY (303) ACCESSORY OCCUPANCY SEE ALLOWABLE AREA BELOW SHEET 07.14.2023 IRV21-5032-00 TITLE PAGE 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823 1 1. TITLE SHEET 2. EXISTING SITE PLAN 3. SITE PLAN 4. CONCEPTUAL SECTION @ NASA ST 5. PARKING EXHIBIT 6. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, FENCING AND RETAINING WALL PLAN 7. AREA PLAN 8. EXISTING GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 9. EXISTING LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 10. EXISTING LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 11. PARTIAL CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN 12. PARTIAL CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN 13. BUILDING SECTIONS 14. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 15. ROOF PLAN 16. DOOR SCHEDULE AND TYPES 17. WINDOW SCHEDULE AND TYPES 18. DETAILS 19. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 20. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 21. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 22. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 23. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 24. CONCEPTUAL SIGNAGE DETAILS 25. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 26. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 27. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 28. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 29. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 30. PERSPECTIVE VALENCIA VIEW 31. PERSPECTIVE NORTH ELEVATION 32. PERSPECTIVE SOUTH ELEVATION 33. PERSPECTIVE NASA VIEW 34. PERSPECTIVE SURVEYOR VIEW 35. MATERIAL BOARD 36. CONCEPTUAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN L-0 LANDSCAPE TITLE SHEET L-1 EXISTING TREE AND SHRUB PLAN L-2 PLANTING ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-4 PLANTING ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-5 CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION PLAN L-6 PLANTING IMAGES L-7 VALENCIA SECTION L-8 VALENCIA SECTION C1.0 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C1.1 GRADING PLAN & DRAINAGE C1.2 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C1.3 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.1 CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.2 CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.3 CIVIL SITE PLAN C3.0 CUT & FILL PLAN C3.1 CUT & FILL PLAN C3.2 CUT & FILL PLAN C3.3 CUT & FILL PLAN C4.0 SITE SECTIONS C4.1 SITE SECTIONS C5.0 UTILITY DEMOLITION PLAN C5.1 UTILITY PLAN C5.2 UTILITY PLAN C5.3 UTILITY PLAN C5.4 UTILITY PLAN C5.5 NOTES 2 ALTA/ NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 50'-4" FT ATTACHMENT N-1

EXISTING BUILDING
(TO BE DEMOLISHED)

VALENCIA AVENUE

NASA STREET

EXISTING BUILDING
(TO BE DEMOLISHED) NORTH SHEET 05.17.2022 IRV21-5032-00 Existing Site Plan 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823 2 0 30 60 150 300 1" =60' EXISTING PHOTO 1 EXISTING PHOTO 2 EXISTING PHOTO 3 EXISTING PHOTO 4 EXISTING PHOTO 5 726'
139'
49'
48'
72'
42'
53'
50' TYP.
64'
53'
49'
24'
24' 84'
40' CLEAR
40' CLEAR
40' CLEAR
24'
50' REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK
14'
32' 51' 60' PPROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED 18' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 25' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK 14'

PROPOSED

LANDSCAPE
SETBACK 38' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK 52' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK OFFICEPROPOSED DELIVERY STATION BUILDING ±181,500 GSF SURVEYOR NASA

VALENCIA
49'
32'
32'
32'
26'
35'
26'
26'
32'
61' 48 13 39 38 39 42 45 48 49 40 32 22 44 40 44 44 44 44 44 36 36 36 36 36 29 25 2 15 16 27 32' 32' 32' 32' 32' 32' 26' R50' R48' 2' 4 TRAILER SPACES 45 VAN LOADING 45 VAN LOADING EMPLOYEE BREAK SHELTER NEW ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & TRANSFORMER RIDE SHARE SHELTER TRASH ENCLOSURE MONUMENT SIGNAGE, TYP. SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING (5 MIN.) EV CAPABLE STALLS (46 TOTAL) NEW FIRE HYDRANT, TYP. EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO WIDEN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CLOSE NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT, typical EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN, typical EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CLOSE 2 VAN PROBLEM SOLVE SPACES 2 VAN PROBLEM SOLVE SPACES EXISTING ART STRUCTURE TO REMAIN VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, TYP. ENHANCED PAVING AT ALL DRIVEWAYS ASSOCIATE LOT SIGNAGE, TYP. ASSOCIATE STALLS MARKED WITH VISITOR SIGNAGE 2.25 INCHES HIGH 1 FT WIDE BY 11 FT LONG SPEED BUMP , typical EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPEEXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE EV CHARGING STALLS - LEVEL 2 / DCFC (16 TOTAL) BATTERY STORAGE 23' 34' 18'
53' TRUCK CIRCULATION EXIT OFF PROPERTY CARPOOL STALLS (37 TOTAL) SURVEYOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT BY OTHERS (SHOWN IN GRAY) 11' TYP. 9' TYP. 18' TYP. 32' 44' 32' 60' 22' 12' 17' 13' EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE 5' 5' 32'
32'
32'
32'
32' FUTURE HEAVY-DUTY EV CHARGING STALLS, TYP. (13 TOTAL) FUTURE MEDIUM-DUTY EV CHARGING STALLS, TYP. (90 TOTAL) CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV CAPABLE EV WH R R C6 L13 L12 C5 C4 L11 C3 C2 L10 L9 L8 L7 L6 L5 L4 C1 L3 L2 L1 L15 L14 PROPERTY LINE, TYP. STANDARD & VAN ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STALLS - LEVEL 2 / DCFC (2 TOTAL) ZONE: M-I ZONE: MU-II 13'
70'
70'
43'
252' LONG TERM BICYCLE LOCKERS (6 MIN.) 0 30 60 150 300 NORTH 1" =60' TRAILER CIRCULATION DELIVERY VAN CIRCULATION ASSOCIATE CIRCULATION SHEET 09.05.2024 IRV21-5032-00 Site Plan 275 Valencia Ave. REV 12 Brea, CA 92823 3 400 410 420 400 410 420 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 W'LY PL E'LY PL NASA ST CL 30' 30' SUBJECT PROPERTY (E) CURB LINE (E) 2-10' LANES(E) 2-10' LANES 18' 3 1 10' 2 6' (N) 3.5' MAX HT WALL (N) 10'W AC TRAIL CL I BIKE LANE -4:1 FG, TYP EG, TYP (N) 5'W PCC WALK TRAIL LIGHTING WHERE OCCURS VALENCIA AVENUE ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60' NASA STREET ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S 0 SCALE: Hor: 1" = SCALE: Vert: 1" = 10 20 40 20' 10' 2 PROJECT NAME: JOB NO.: SHEET DRAWN: PA/PM: SCALE: DATE : 10 edelman p 949.660.9128 irvine, ca 92618 waremalcomb.com CIVIL ENGINEERING & SURVEYING DJT4 CONCEPTUAL SECTION @ NASA ST IRV21-5032 04.04.2024 4 SECTION 2-2 NASA ST 1 (E) EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COMMUICATION UTILITIES 2 (E) EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL LINES 3 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK NASA STREET (ROW:60' ) SURVEYOR AVENUE (ROW:60' ) VALENCIA AVENUE (ROW:100' ) 2 CONCEPTUAL OFFICE
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION BUILDING ±181,500 GSF

SURVEYOR
NASA
VALENCIA 48 13 39 38 39 42 45 48 49 40 32 22 44 40 44 44 44 44 44 36 36 36 36 36 29 25 2 15 16 27 CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV CAPABLE EV 13' 0 5 10 20 50 NORTH 1" =10' SHEET 07.14.2023 IRV21-5032-00 Parking Exhibit 275 Valencia Ave. REV 11 Brea, CA 92823 5 CATEGORY PROVIDED ASSOCIATE LOT VAN LOT TOTAL VAN PARKING (11'X24') 757 LOADING & STAGING AREA VAN STAGING SPACES* 90 VAN LOADING SPACES 90 TRUCK YARD LOADING DOCK SPACES 13 TRAILER PARKING SPACES (INCL. HOSTLER) 4 *VAN STAGING ALSO REFERRED TO AS VAN QUEUEING TOTAL ASSOCIATE LOT PARKING 304 ADA PARKING 8 EV LIGHT-DUTY CAPABLE PARKING 46 EV CHARGING PARKING 18 EV CHARGING ADA PARKING 2 VISITOR PARKING NOTE: THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PUBLIC FACILITY, HOWEVER, IS NOT GATED OR A CONTROLLED ACCESS CAMPUS. SIGNAGE IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAN WILL PROVIDE WAYFINDING FOR RARE/ERRANT VISITORS TO PARK IN SELECT IDENTIFIED ASSOCIATED PARKING STALLS. CARPOOL / VANPOOL PARKING 37 EV MEDIUM-DUTY CAPABLE PARKING 90 EV HEAVY-DUTY CAPABLE PARKING 13 OFFICE
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION BUILDING ±181,500 GSF

SURVEYOR
NASA
VALENCIA 48 13 39 38 39 42 45 48 49 40 32 22 44 40 44 44 44 44 44 36 36 36 36 36 29 25 2 15 16 27 EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO WIDEN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CLOSE ENHANCED PAVING AT ALL DRIVEWAYS ASSOCIATE LOT SIGNAGE, TYP. ASSOCIATE STALLS MARKED WITH VISITOR SIGNAGE 2.25 INCHES HIGH 1 FT WIDE BY 11 FT LONG SPEED BUMP , typical EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPEEXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE CARPOOL STALLS (37 TOTAL) EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV CAPABLE EV 13'
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCING
323 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 0.5' BREAK IN WALL FOR PATH OF TRAVEL (E) HEDGING 658 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 2.5'' 409 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 2.5'' 453 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 3.5'' 142 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 3.5'' 235 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 3.5'' 192 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 3.5'' 114 LF (N) RETAINING WALL. MAX HT 3.5'' (N) 7FT HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PROPERTY LINE, TYP. ZONE: M-I ZONE: MU-II 50' REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK (M-I ZONE) ZONE: M-I ZONE: MU-II 14'
REQUIRED 10' SETBACK
10'

REQUIRED

SETBACK
0' REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK (MU-II ZONE) 0 30 60 150 300 NORTH 1" =60' SHEET 07.14.2023 IRV21-5032-00 Pedestrian Access / Fencing and Retaining Wall Plan 275 Valencia Ave. REV 11 Brea, CA 92823 6 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL LEGEND MIN. 3FT TALL HEDGE TO SCREEN PARKING. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS MIN. 7FT TALL HEDGE TO SCREEN BUILDING. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS RETAINING WALL (HEIGHT PER PLAN). FINISH TO BE SPLIT FACE CMU OR APPROVED EQUAL EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCING TO REMAIN TUBULAR STEEL FENCING SIGNAGE KEYNOTES 5 MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN STOP SIGN PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN RIDESHARE DROP OFF & PICK UP SIGN WAYFINDING SIGN MONUMENT SIGNMAX. 30" TALL HEDGE TO SCREEN PARKING. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS OFFICE
PROPOSED DELIVERY STATION BUILDING ±181,500 GSF

SURVEYOR
NASA
VALENCIA 48 13 39 38 39 42 45 48 49 40 32 22 44 40 44 41 44 44 44 36 36 36 36 36 29 25 2 15 16 27 EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO WIDEN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL NEW DRIVEWAY - REFER TO CIVIL EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CLOSE ENHANCED PAVING AT ALL DRIVEWAYS ASSOCIATE LOT SIGNAGE, TYP. ASSOCIATE STALLS MARKED WITH VISITOR SIGNAGE 2.25 INCHES HIGH 1 FT WIDE BY 11 FT LONG SPEED BUMP , typical EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPEEXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE CARPOOL STALLS (37 TOTAL) EXISTING BUILDING, NOT IN SCOPE CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY CARPOOL ONLY EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLEEV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV CAPABLE EV EV CAPABLE EV 0 30 60 150 300 NORTH 1" =60' SHEET 07.10.2023 IRV21-5032-00 Area Plan 275 Valencia Ave. REV 12 Brea, CA 92823 7

Women's
M.R.R.

K
J
H
G
E
D
A A
7 E
D
C
B
Women's Women's
F 8
J
C
6 B
LRR
15 H
G
F
12 56 34 9 10 78 15 13 14 11 12
1 10 11 12 2 345
M.R.R.
14 MRR
13 9
B of A Brea 1st floor
P
N
M
L
2 1
Women's
M.R.R.
10 Women's
M.R.R.
89 T
S
R
T
Women's
M
M.R.R.

S
R
P
N
Women's
K
11 15 14 13 12
L
M.R.R.
37 6 5 4
SCALE: 1" = 20' + Existing Building - Ground Level Floor Plan

12.16.2022
8 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823 NORTH IRV21-5032-00 SHEET 08.21.2023 SHEET 275 Valencia Ave. IRV21-5032-00 Brea, CA 92823
O

M.R.R.

Women's
Patio
Men's
Patio
Women's
Women's Women's
M.R.R. MRR
Women's
6 10
Cafeteria
Kitchen
8 Cafeteria
Women's
MRR
9 A
10 5
#11
M.R.R.
14 15
A
K
J
H
G
11 12 13
C
B
7 34
RR
12 5
K
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
4 36 12 13 14
J
15 11 12 F
E
D
Courier Dock Courier Dock
M.R.R.

Women's
S
R
B of A Brea 2nd floor
Women's
L
Women's
L
10 R
P
14 N
M
2 1
T
11 12 13 89 7
T
P
K
S
K
M.R.R.

M.R.R.

Women's Women's
M.R.R.
6 5 4 3 15
N
M
SCALE: 1" = 20' + Existing Building - Level 2 Floor Plan

12.16.2022
9NORTH 08.21.2023
SHEET 275 Valencia Ave. IRV21-5032-00 Brea, CA 92823
O O

Women
Women's
M.R.R.
456
56 M.R.R.
9 8 7
#11
WC M.R.R.

Women's
#6
J
H
G
F
D
C
B
12 13 14
E
10 11 M.R.R.

Women's
Women's
Women's
Women's
11 M.R.R.

AHU-10
10 15
K
J
H
3 G
F
E
D
C
B
12 A
12 13 14 15
A
WC
234 1
S
P
N
Women's
Women's
R
M
M.R.R.

M.R.R.

WC
9 10 11
Women's
78 13 14 12
Women's
15 123456
T
S
R
P
N
M
L
K
T
L
K
B of A Brea 3rd floor
Women's
Women's
SCALE: 1" = 20' + Existing Building - Level 3 Floor Plan

12.16.2022
1 0 NORTH 08.21.2023
WH 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 726'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 43'-0" 70'-0" LOBBY 121 DEMARC ROOM 113 ELECTRICAL 116 FIRE PUMP 117 BREAK ROOM 111 WOMEN'S RESTROOM 104 WOMEN'S RESTROOM 105 MEN'S RESTROOM 106 TRAINING ROOM 108 NEW MOTHER'S ROOM 126 JANITOR 125 OFFICE 128 MULTI-FAITH 120 ABLUTION 123 AMA-ZONE 110 CIRCULATION 114 CIRCULATION 120A EXTERNALIZED MDF 115 SCRUBBER 129 STOR 107S STOR 104S STOR 106S ENTRY/EXIT 101 DW ROOM 144 WAREHOUSE 145 MEN'S RESTROOM 107 LOCKERS 109 LOCKERS 112 WELLNESS CENTER 124 CB A

MATCHLINE MATCHLINE
30'-5"
37'-9" 37'-11"
121'-6" 68'-11"
30'-3"
189'-4" 70'-7" 85'-2" PACKAGE HANDLING AREA WINDOWS AT FRONT ENTRANCE TO BE RECESSED SINGLE PANEL DEPTH (8" IN TOTAL) ENTRY LOUVERED SCREEN TO BE 10FT IN DEPTH BUILDING ENTRY TO BE ACCESSIBLE CORNER TO POP OUT 18" FROM ADJACENT PANEL CORNER TO POP OUT 18" FROM ADJACENT PANEL 85'-2" 85'-2" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 1/16"=1'-0" REQUIRED EXIT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. LEGEND WINDOW TAG. REFER TO WINDOW SCHEDULE SHEET 09.05.2024 IRV21-5032-00 Conceptual Partial Floor Plan 275 Valencia Ave. REV 12 Brea, CA 92823 11 DEFGJKLH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CDEFGJBAKL 726'-0" 63'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 250'-0" BREAKROOM N 138 WOMEN'S RESTROOM 137 MEN'S RESTROOM 136 WAREHOUSE 145 TRUCKER RESTROOM 155

MATCHLINE MATCHLINE
16'-10" 7'-5" PACKAGE HANDLING AREA ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL H 85'-2" 85'-2" 85'-2" 85'-2" NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' 64' 1/16"=1'-0" REQUIRED EXIT FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. LEGEND SHEET 09.05.2024 IRV21-5032-00 Conceptual Partial Floor Plan 275 Valencia Ave. REV 12 Brea, CA 92823 12 FIRST FLOOR0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T/PANEL 44' - 6" T/STRUCTURE 36' - 0" TRUCK DOCK -4' - 0" B/STRUCTURE 32' - 0" 63'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 32'-0"
CLEAR
MATCHLINE FIRST FLOOR0" 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 T/PANEL 44' - 6" T/STRUCTURE 36' - 0" B/STRUCTURE 32' - 0" 32'-0"
CLEAR 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 43'-0" 70'-0"
MATCHLINE FIRST FLOOR0" T/PANEL 44' - 6" T/STRUCTURE 36' - 0" H G F E D C B/STRUCTURE 32' - 0" K J B A 45' - 1" 14'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 14'-0" 45' - 1" 32'-0"
CLEAR 59' - 1" 250'-0" 59' - 1"
14'-0"
CLEAR
14'-0"
CLEAR SHEET IRV21-5032-00 Sections 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823 0 8'' 16'' 32'' 64'' 1/16"=1'-0" BUILDING SECTION - EAST/WEST BUILDING SECTION - EAST/WEST BUILDING SECTION - NORTH / SOUTH

08.21.2023 12.16.2022 13
PAGE
DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.16.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00

CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
1 HIGH PERFORMANCE GLAZING

VIRTRO SOLAR BLUE
2 LOUVER SYSTEM

WOOD TONE COLOR
3 PAINT
RIVERS EDGE - SW 7517
4 PAINT (PT-1)
HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE - SW 7757
5 PAINT (PT-2)
MEXICAN SAND - SW 7519
6 ALUMINUM MULLION

DARK BRONZE ANODIZED
7 SPANDREL

TOP OF PARAPET
44’-6”

TOP OF CANOPY
18’-4”

FINISH GRADE
0’-0”

TOP OF PARAPET
44’-6”

TOP OF CANOPY
18’-4”

FINISH GRADE
0’-0”

TOP OF PARAPET
50’-4”

TOP OF PARAPET
44’-6”

TOP OF CANOPY
18’-4”

FINISH GRADE
0’-0”

TOP OF PARAPET
50’-4”

TOP OF PARAPET
44’-6”

TOP OF CANOPY
18’-4”

FINISH GRADE
0’-0”

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 20’ = 1’-0”

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 20’ = 1’-0”

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 20’ = 1’-0”

SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 20’ = 1’-0”
680’-0”
75’-0”
4 6
4 5
5 3
3 3
3 4 5 5
4 3 9 3 2 7 1 5 3 9 3
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.
142
NORTH SHEET 07.14.2023 IRV21-5032-00 Roof Plan 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823 0 16'' 32'' 64'' 128'' 1/32"=1'-0" 15 11 22 1515 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1010 1111 1212 1313 1414 C C D D E E F F G G H H B B A A J J K K 726'-0" 63'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 43'-0" 70'-0" 726'-0" 63'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 43'-0" 70'-0" PARAPET HEIGHT: 44' - 6" 59' - 1" 250'-0" 59' - 1"
45' - 1" 14'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 14'-0" 45' - 1" 59' - 1" 250'-0" 59' - 1"
45' - 1" 14'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 53'-0" 48'-0" 14'-0" 45' - 1" 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/2" / 1'-0"
1/2" / 1'-0"
1/2" / 1'-0"
1/2" / 1'-0" 38' - 0" B/DECK TYP G 39' - 3" B/DECK TYP F 40' - 3" B'DECK TYP E 39' - 0" B/DECK TYP D RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE 37' - 9" B/DECK TYP C 36' - 9" B/DECK TYP H ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 6' - 9" PARAPET HEIGHT 4' - 3" PARAPET HEIGHT 7' - 9" PARAPET HEIGHT ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION TO BE FINISHED ON ALL FOUR SIDES ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION TO BE FINISHED ON ALL FOUR SIDES. 7'-0" 7'-0"
7'-0" 11'-0"
WH R R 7'-0" 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN.
1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. 1/4" / 1'-0" MIN. LEGEND CALCULATIONS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TABLE SOLAR PANEL READINESS SOLAR READY ROOF AREA = 163,350 (ROOF AREA) X 15.0% = 24,503 REQUIRED (ROOF AREA) X 15.0% = 26,100 PROVIDED 11'-0" SEE SCHEDULE STOP F1 SINGLE FRAME SEE SCHED.

SEE SCHEDULE STOP F2 PAIR FRAME SEE SCHED. RABBETED JAMB F3 STOREFRONT SEE A5.13 FOR RELITE ELEVATIONS 2" 2" 2"
SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHED. 5" 2' - 2" 5"

SEE SCHEDULE
10" MIN
5' - 9" 5" 1/2" CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS ALUMINUM / GLASS STOREFRONT SEE SCHED.

SEE SCHEDULE
A1 - HM (18 GA) A2 - WD A3 - DOUBLE FLUSH FLUSH PANEL SEE SCHED. OVERHEAD STEEL SECTIONAL INSULATED DOOR SEE SCHED.

SEE SCHEDULE 2' - 0"
6" NOTE: VISION PANEL SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY OVERHEAD STEEL COILING DOOR (EXTERIOR MOUNT). SEE SCHEDULE HIGH SPEED FABRIC ROLL UP DOOR (INTERIOR MOUNT). SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHEDULE SEE SCHED.
2' - 10" 3' - 6" 6" 6" PROVIDE KICK PLATES WHERE NOTED IN HARDWARE SCHEDULE 2' - 6" CONT. RATED ASTRAGAL SECURITY LATCH PROTECTOR WHERE NOTED IN HARDWARE SCHEDULE SEE SCHED. SEE SCHED. 2' - 6" PROVIDE KICK PLATES WHERE NOTED IN HARDWARE SCHEDULE

SEE SCHEDULE

SEE SCHEDULE
SEE SCHEDULE FLUSH PANEL HALF LITE SEE SCHED.
2' - 10" 3' - 6" 6" 6"
SEE SCHEDULE NARROW VISION PANEL SEE SCHED.
2' - 3" 3' - 7" RELITE T
2' - 6" T 6" A BB1 - HM (18 GA) B2 - WD C E1 - HM (18 GA) E2 - WD (NOT USED) FLUSH PANEL W/ IMPACT E RESISTANT RATED HALF LITE G1 - SINGLE ALUMINUM/GLASS STOREFRONT G2 - DOUBLE ALUMINUM/GLASS STOREFRONT G H J K 4" SEE SCHED. SECURITY LATCH PROTECTOR WHERE NOTED IN HARDWARE SCHEDULE PROVIDE KICK PLATES WHERE NOTED IN HARDWARE SCHEDULE T T T T C1 - HM (18 GA) C2 - WD CLF1 SINGLE FRAME SEE SCHEDULE GATE SWING DOOR SEE SCHED. CL1
SEE SCHEDULE GATE SLIDING DOOR SEE SCHED. CL2
SEE SCHED. SEE SCHED. CL3 SEE SCHED.

SEE SCHEDULE
10" EXIT DEVICE AND MOUNTING PLATE MOUNTING PLATE FOR CLOSER MIN. SMOOTH

SURFACE,
PUSH SIDE GATE EXIT DEVICE DOOR FRAME TYPES DOOR TYPES FENCE FRAME AND DOOR TYPES SHEET IRV21-5032-00 Door Schedule and Types 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823

08.21.2023 12.16.2022 16
FIRST FLOOR 0" EQ EQ EQ B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION 3'-0" 4'-1" 2'-11" CL CL CL EQ FIRST FLOOR 0" EQ EQ SEE DOOR SCHEDULE B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION 3'-0" 4'-1" 2'-11" T T CL CL CL T T SEE DOOR SCHEDULE TT T T T T 3'-0" EQ
4'-1" 2'-11" LC B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION B/FRAME 0" FIRST FLOOR EQ4'-1" FIRST FLOOR 0" B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION CL CL 2'-11" 4'-1" EQ EQ EQ4'-1" 2'-11" B/MULLION FIRST FLOOR 0" EQ EQ EQ EQ SEE DOOR SCHEDULE 1'-0" B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION TT T 3'-0" 4'-1" 2'-11" CL CL CL CL CL T T B/MULLION4'-1" FIRST FLOOR 0" B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION CL CL CL 2'-11" 4'-1" EQ EQ EQ EQ4'-1" 2'-11" B/MULLION EQ CL
3'-1" EQ
4'-1" 2'-11" LC B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION B/FRAME 0" FIRST FLOOR EQ4'-1" TT T T B/MULLION FIRST FLOOR 0" EQ EQ SEE DOOR SCHEDULE B/FRAME B/MULLION T/FRAME B/MULLION 3'-0" 4'-1" 2'-11" T T CL CL CL TT T EQ 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE A 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE B 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE C 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE D 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE E 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE F 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE G 1/4" = 1'-0" WINDOW TYPE H SHEET 09.05.2024 IRV21-5032-00 Conceptual Window Schedule and Types 275 Valencia Ave. REV 12 Brea, CA 92823 17 TT T ATTACHMENT N-2 PAINTED STEEL GATE CMU WALL TRASH BINS. TYPICAL 6'-3" x 4'-1", VERIFY WITH LOCAL JURISDICTION SLOPE
FT. MIN.
1/8" PER 11'-0"
8'-6" 15'-6"
13'-0"
SLOPE

8.3% MAX. 6" HIGH CONCRETE PLATFORM TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS, SEE CONCRETE CURB, WHERE OCCURS -D- -B- -A- -C- SECTION 2" O.D. STD. STEEL GALVANIZED PIPE PRIMED AND PAINTED EMBEDDED MOUNTING CONCRETE PAVING SEE CIVIL DWGS. 2" O.D. STD. STEEL GALVANIZED PIPE PRIMED AND PAINTED PLAN 10 1/4" 3'-0" 1'-10" 5'-10" CONCRETE PAVING SEE CIVIL DWGS. 2'-0" 1'-10" 2'-0"5'-10" 2'-11" 2'-11" 5'-10" WITHIN THE LOADING AND UNLOADING ACCESS AISLE PAINT THE WORD "NO PARKING" IN 12" HIGH LETTERS MIN. NOTE: PAINT DIRECTIONAL ARROWS AT DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY PARKING AS REQUIRED PER CITY STANDARDS 0" CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE WHEEL STOP 4" WIDE STRIPE PAINTED BLUE 4" WIDE DOUBLE STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. PAINTED WHITE, TYP. NO PARKING 2'-0" . 19'-0" TYP 3'-0"ACCESSIBLE STALL 9'-0" 8'-0" @ VAN 9'-0" 5'-0" TYP. REGULAR STALL . 17'-0" VEGETATION CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY "A" FLOOR PLAN "B" ELEVATION "A" ELEVATION "B" BENCH/BACKREST 7'-0" 7'-8"
7'-0" 14'-5" 14'-0"
7'-8" TEMPERED GLAZING PAINTED STEEL FRAME CONCRETE FLOOR 5'-0" MIN. CLEAR 48"x30" EDGE OF CURB 96"x60" BUS BOARDING AND ALIGHTING AREA CONCRETE PATH CMU WALL STUCCO FINISH WITH PAINT WALLS TO MATCH BUILDING FIELD COLOR FINISH SURFACE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING, SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT STEEL TUBE, 6'-0" 2'-6" -A- -C- METAL GUTTER 4"x4" METAL DOWNSPOUT 1'-0" 2 1/2" PREFABRICATED RUBBER SPEED BUMP SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SHORT TERM BIKE RACK SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 TYPICAL PARKING STALLS SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 6 PREFABRICATED RIDESHARE SHELTER SHEET 12.16.2022 IRV21-5032-00 DETAILS 275 Valencia Ave. Brea, CA 92823SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 3 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 2 SPEED BUMP SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 7 PREFABRICATED SHORT-TERM BIKE SHELTER 18 19 20
21 22
23 24
AERIAL
PAGE 25 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.

VALENCIA VIEW
PAGE
26 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.

PERSPECTIVE VIEW_

VALENCIAVIEW
PAGE
27 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.

PERSPECTIVE VIEW_

VALENCIAVIEW
PAGE
28 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.
5 YEAR - AERIAL
PAGE
29 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.
5 YEAR - VALENCIA VIEW
PAGE
30 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.
5 YEAR - PERSPECTIVE VIEW_

VALENCIAVIEW
PAGE
31 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.
5 YEAR - PERSPECTIVE VIEW_

VALENCIAVIEW
PAGE
32 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.

ATTACHMENT N-3

NASA VIEW
PAGE
DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 12.22.2023
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 33
5 YEAR -
PERSPECTIVE VIEW_SURVEYOR VIEW
PAGE
DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 01.15.2024
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. PAGE 34 5 YEAR -
PAGE
DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 03.28.2024
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00

DARK BRONZE ANODIZED

ALUMINUM MULLIONS
8 MATERIAL BOARD This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification. 35

HIGH PERFORMANCE GLAZING
2 3 4
VITRO

SOLARBLUE
1 2 3 2 3 4 4

HIGH REFLECTIVE
WHITE
SW 7757
PT-1

RIVERS EDGE
SW 7517
PT-2

MEXICAN SAND
SW 7519
PT-3
Statistics
Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min
BIKE PATH 3.0 fc 10.9 fc 0.8 fc 13.6:1 3.8:1BUILDING EXTERIOR 5.8 fc 16.1 fc 0.3 fc 53.7:1 19.3:1CANOPY 10.6 fc 12.9 fc 6.4 fc 2.0:1 1.7:1CANOPY 10.6 fc 12.9 fc 7.2 fc 1.8:1 1.5:1EAST PARKING LOT 1.5 fc 4.7 fc 0.1 fc 47.0:1 15.0:1LOADING DOCK 1.1 fc 2.2 fc 0.5 fc 4.4:1 2.2:1SITE 1.6 fc 14.3 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/AWEST PARKING LOT 1.9 fc 5.4 fc 0.3 fc 18.0:1 6.3:1BEYOND PROP LINE 0.0 fc 0.4 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A Schedule
Symbol Label
POLE

MOUNTING
HEIGHT
Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Number Lamps Lumens Per Lamp Light Loss Factor Wattage A
20 Lithonia Lighting DSX2 LED P3 40K T5W DSX2 LED P3 40K T5W MVOLT 1 29142 0.9 217 B
5 Lithonia Lighting DSX2 LED P4 40K TFTM DSX2 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT 1 33388 0.9 270 D
17 Lithonia Lighting DSX2 LED P2 40K T5W DSX2 LED P2 40K T5W MVOLT 1 24808 0.9 370 E
16 Lithonia Lighting DSX2 LED P1 40K BLC DSX2 LED P1 40K BLC MVOLT 1 15538 0.9 140 F1
114 Lithonia Lighting VCPG LED P5 40K T5R
MVOLT PM NLTAIR2 PIR DNAXD
VCPG LED WITH P5 - PERFORMANCE PACKAGE, 4000K, T5R OPTIC TYPE 1 10497 0.9 82.14
I 9 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM WBA DSXW2BBW DSX1 LED P4 40K TFTM MVOLT 1 14487 0.9 125 K
7 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED P2 40K 80CRI
T1S
D-Series Size 1 Area Luminaire P2 Performance Package 4000K CCT 80 CRI Type 1 Short 1 9559 0.9 67.79
NoteLIGHTING VENDOR INFORMATION:GC TO CONTACT CITY LIGHTING PRODUCTS AS THE PREFERRED VENDORFOR ALL LIGHTING FIXTURE AND LIGHTING CONTROLS INQUIRIES.MANAGER/PJM: GARY MAGRENI, [email protected], 704-235-3134PJM: DANA BECKHAM, [email protected], 704-235-3136 28FT
28FT
28FT28FT

13.75FT
10FT- 15FT15FT
0 30 60 150 300 NORTH
1" =60'
SHEET

11.22.2022
IRV21-5032-00

CONCEPTUAL TRAIL CONNECTION
275 Valencia Ave.

OPTION 3
Brea, CA 92823 1

EXTENDED POLE BASE

DIAMETERBOLT CENTER
GROUND RODCOPPERWELD3/4"x8'-0"
1 #6 CU GND

POLEELECTRODE CONDUCTOR TO

CONDUCTOR AND GROUNDING
EQUIP. GROUNDING
BOND METAL CONDUIT(S).

BUSHING(S) PER MANUFACTURERHANDHOLE PER MANUFACTURER
WITHIN 4' OF CURB)

AREAS AN IN LANDSCAPED AREAS
(FOR USE IN PAVED VEHICULAR

POLE BASE
FIRST 3 TIES WITHIN TOP 5" OF
WITH #3 TIES @ 6" O.C. LOCATEWITH (6) #6 VERTICAL BARS FOR24" DIA. BASE(8) #6 VERTICAL BARS FOR30" DIA. BASEBARS VERTICAL AND 3000 PSI CONCRETE BASE

DIRECTION AS REQUIRED

CONDUIT, QUANTITY AND

FINISHED GRADE
3/4" CHAMFER ALL AROUND

POLE FINISH

COVER TO MATCH

ANCHOR BOLTS PER MANUFACTURER

POLE PER MANUFACTURER
12"
2" MIN
3'-0"
1 #6 CU GND
2" MAX. NON-SHRINK GROUT
24" DIA. FOR MAX. POLEHEIGHT OF 12'-0"30" DIA. FOR MAX. POLEHEIGHT OF 30'-0" 60" @ 12'-0"TALL POLE72" @ 30'-0"TALL POLE
NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FINAL POLE DIMENSIONS AND WIGHT FOR VERIFICATION WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (SEOR) PRIOR TO FOOTING CONSTRUCTION. 3" CLR. TYP.

SCALE: NTS
LIGHTING - POLE BASE DETAILS 1
One Lithonia Way
• Conyers, Georgia 30012
• Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378)
• www.lithonia.com
© 2011-2023 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved.

DSX1-LED
Rev. 09/05/23

COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR
Ordering Information EXAMPLE: DSX1 LED P7 40K 70CRI T3M MVOLT SPA NLTAIR2 PIRHN DDBXD DSX1 LED
Series LEDs Color temperature 2 Color Rendering
Index 2 Distribution Voltage Mounting
DSX1 LED Forward optics
P1 P6P2 P7P3 P8P4 P9P5Rotated opticsP10 1 P12 1
P11 1 P13 1
(this section 70CRI only)30K 3000K40K 4000K50K 5000K (this section 80CRI only, extended lead times apply)27K 2700K30K 3000K35K 3500K40K 4000K50K 5000K 70CRI70CRI70CRI80CRI80CRI80CRI80CRI80CRI
AFR Automotive front rowT1S Type I shortT2M Type II mediumT3M Type III mediumT3LG Type III low glare 3T4M Type IV mediumT4LG Type IV low glare 3TFTM Forward throw medium T5M Type V medium
T5LG Type V low glareT5W Type V wideBLC3 Type III backlight control 3
BLC4 Type IV backlight
control 3
LCCO Left corner cutoff 3RCCO Right corner cutoff 3
MVOLT (120V-277V) 4HVOLT (347V-480V) 5,6XVOLT (277V - 480V) 7,8120 16, 26208 16, 26240 16, 26277 16, 26347 16, 26480 16, 26 Shipped includedSPA Square pole mounting
(#8 drilling)
RPA Round pole mounting
(#8 drilling)
SPA5 Square pole mounting
#5 drilling 9
RPA5 Round pole mounting
#5 drilling 9
SPA8N Square narrow pole
mounting #8 drilling
WBA Wall bracket 10MA Mast arm adapter
(mounts on 2 3/8" OD horizontal tenon)
Control options Other options Finish (required)
Shipped installedNLTAIR2 PIRHN nLight AIR gen 2 enabled with bi-level motion / ambient sensor, 8-40’ mounting height, ambient sensor enabled at 2fc. 11, 12, 20, 21 PIR High/low, motion/ambient sensor, 8-40’ mounting
height, ambient sensor enabled at 2fc 13, 20, 21
PER NEMA twist-lock receptacle only (controls ordered
separate) 14
PER5 Five-pin receptacle only (controls ordered separate)14, 21 PER7 Seven-pin receptacle only (controls
ordered separate) 14, 21
FAO Field adjustable output 15, 21BL30 Bi-level switched dimming, 30% 16, 21BL50 Bi-level switched dimming, 50% 16, 21DMG 0-10v dimming wires pulled outside fixture (for use with an external control, ordered separately) 17 DS Dual switching 18, 19, 21
Shipped installedSPD20KV 20KV surge protectionHS Houseside shield (black finish standard) 22L90 Left rotated optics 1R90 Right rotated optics 1CCE Coastal Construction 23HA 50°C ambient operation24BAA Buy America(n) Act CompliantSF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) 26DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) 26Shipped separately EGSR External Glare Shield (reversible, field install required, matches housing finish)
BSDB Bird Spikes (field install required)
DDBXD Dark BronzeDBLXD BlackDNAXD Natural AluminumDWHXD WhiteDDBTXD Textured dark bronzeDBLBXD Textured blackDNATXD Textured natural aluminumDWHGXD Textured white D-Series Size 1LED Area Luminaire
Catalog NumberNotesType
IntroductionThe modern styling of the D-Series features a highly refined aesthetic that blends seamlessly with its environment. The D-Series offers the benefits of the latest in LED technology into a high performance, high efficacy, long-life luminaire. The photometric performance results in sites with excellent uniformity, greater pole spacing and lower power density. D-Series outstand -
ing photometry aids in reducing the number of poles required in area lighting applications with typical energy savings of 65% and expected service life of over 100,000 hours.

Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements.

H2
L
W
H1
Specifications
EPA: 0.69 ft
2 (0.06 m
2 )
Length: 32.71"
(83.1 cm)
Width: 14.26"
(36.2 cm)
Height H1: 7.88"
(20.0 cm)
Height H2: 2.73"
(6.9 cm)
Weight
: 34 lbs
(15.4 kg)
PROVIDE 15FT TALL POLEARCHITECT TO SELECT FINISH FIXTURE K T
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
Uk
D
D
w
MH w
E
w
S
S
D
WA
WA
WA
SS
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
W
UN
WA
WA
WA
G
G
G
C2
L10
L9
L7
C1
L2
L1 L15
L14
C6 C4 L12
L11
C3
C5
L8
L13
L6
L5
L4
L3 EXISTING TREE LEGEND - REMOVAL SYMBOLS BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' CRAPE MYRTLE QTY. 223 EXISTING TREE LEGEND - PROTECT IN PLACE SYMBOLS BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE QTY. 27 POPULUS NIGRA LOMBARDY POPLAR PINUS HALEPENSIS ALEPPO PINE PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE 137962 RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' MAJESTIC BEAUTY 178 L-1 EXISTING TREE AND SHRUB PLAN DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: PA / PM: SHEET

REMARKS DATE DATE REMARKS
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT KTIRV21-5032-00 / 21167 1 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2 01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
3 08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
4 01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
5 04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
6 06-20-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
7 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
8 04-17-2025 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
U:\2021\21167\cad\sheets\entitlement\L-1.dwg
Mon, 05 May 2025
Use of the plans and specifications contained
herein shall be restricted to the original site for
which they were prepared; publication thereof is
expressly limited to such use. Reproduction,
publication, or reuse by any method, in whole orin part, without the express written consent of imais prohibited. Title to said plans remains the soleproperty of ima; visual contact shall constitute acceptance of these restrictions. SIGNATURE DATE
5281 california ave
suite 350
irvine, california
92617
949.954.7500
www.imadesign.com KT PLANS CONFORM TO 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. PLANTING PLANS CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CITY OF BREA FIRE DEPARTMENT FUEL MODIFICATION GUIDELINE. IRRIGATION PLANS CONFORM TO THE CITY OF BREA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. PLANS ARE PREPARED FROM CIVIL ENGINEER BACKGROUND DATED 02/17/2025.

DJT4
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
275 VALENCIA AVENUE
NO. 2022-193 S C A L E: 1" = 60' - 0"
0 30 60 120 SURVEYOR AVE

NASA ST

VALENCIA AVE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDING 60' ROW
60' ROW
92' ROW
H2O H2O
H2O H2O
H2O H2O
SD
SD
SD
SS
SD
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
W
UN
WA
WA
WA
G
G
G

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV
EV EV
EV

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV
EV CAPABLE EV 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 24" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 60" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36"36" 24" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60"24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 60" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 60" 36" 36" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 60" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 36" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24"24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 36" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" C2
L10
L9
L7
C1
L2
L1 L15
L14
C6 C4 L12
L11
C3
C5
L8
L13
L6
L5
L4
L3 L-2
CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: PA / PM: SHEET

REMARKS DATE DATE REMARKS
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT KTIRV21-5032-00 / 21167 1 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2 01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
3 08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
4 01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
5 04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
6 06-20-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
7 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
8 04-17-2025 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
U:\2021\21167\cad\sheets\L-2_Design Development.dwg
Mon, 05 May 2025
Use of the plans and specifications contained
herein shall be restricted to the original site for
which they were prepared; publication thereof is
expressly limited to such use. Reproduction,
publication, or reuse by any method, in whole orin part, without the express written consent of imais prohibited. Title to said plans remains the soleproperty of ima; visual contact shall constitute acceptance of these restrictions. SIGNATURE DATE
5281 california ave
suite 350
irvine, california
92617
949.954.7500
www.imadesign.com KT PLANS CONFORM TO 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. PLANTING PLANS CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CITY OF BREA FIRE DEPARTMENT FUEL MODIFICATION GUIDELINE. IRRIGATION PLANS CONFORM TO THE CITY OF BREA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. PLANS ARE PREPARED FROM CIVIL ENGINEER BACKGROUND DATED 02/17/2025.

DJT4
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
275 VALENCIA AVENUE
NO. 2022-193 S C A L E: 1" = 60' - 0"
0 30 60 120 SURVEYOR AVE

NASA ST

VALENCIA AVE
MU-II ZONE M-1 ZONE PROPOSED BUILDING ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING - INTEGRAL COLOR WITH SAWCUT JOINTS, TYP. PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPELINES EXISTING EASEMENT SCREEN PARKING, TYP. MODULAR WETLAND MODULAR WETLAND ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING - INTEGRAL COLOR WITH SAWCUT JOINTS, TYP. SIGNAGE, TYP. RETAINING WALL 42" MAX. HT. TYP. PER BCC SECTION 20.236.040.E RETAINING WALL 30" MAX. HT. TYP. PER BCC SECTION 20.252.040.E SCREENING HEDGE HEDGE TO SCREEN TRUCK PARKING, TYP. SCREENING HEDGE EXISTING ART SCULPTURE TO REMAIN RETAINING WALL 42" MAX. HT. TYP. PER BCC SECTION 20.236.040.E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
20'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
25'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
8'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
8' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 5' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 5'

LANDSCAPE
5' BUFFER
EXCEEDS 5' LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
EXCEEDS 5' LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
60' ROW
60' ROW
92' ROW
11'-2" TYP.
38'-8"
63'-6" 35'-8" 22'-10"
18'-3" TYP.
9'-5" TYP.
22' TYP. 7' MIN. HT. HEDGE TO SCREEN VAN LOADING/ QUEUING AREAS SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE TREE LEGEND - SUNSET ZONE 23 SYMBOLS SIZE SPACING WUCOLS REMARKS VERY LOW LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX PER PLAN STANDARD HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON (NATIVE PLANT) 15 GAL. 60" o.c. QTY. 427 MODERATE 40 EXISTING TREE LEGEND SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION REMARKS EXISTING SYCAMORE TREE PROTECT IN PLACE ± 5-6' HT. 24" BOX QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK (NATIVE PLANT) FULL TO THE GROUND PER PLAN 24" GROUNDCOVER LEGEND - SUNSET ZONE 23 SYMBOLS SIZE SPACING SHRUB LEGEND - SUNSET ZONE 23 SYMBOLS SIZE SPACING WUCOLS WUCOLS REMARKS REMARKS ACACIA REDOLENS 'DESERT CARPET' PROSTRATE ACACIA 1 GAL. 72" o.c. VERY LOW QTY. QTY. RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' 5 GAL. 36" o.c. 82 LOW 6359 LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' 5 GAL. 36" o.c. MODERATE WAXLEAF PRIVET 1490 MODULAR WETLAND LEGEND - SUNSET ZONE 23 SYMBOLS SIZE SPACING WUCOLS JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH REMARKS 1 GAL. 24" O.C. LOW - QTY. 104 CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET' NATAL PLUM 1 GAL. 24" o.c. 26,210 LOW ELAEAGNUS PUNGENS SILVERBERRY 5 GAL. 36" o.c. LOW ± 1-2' HT. 3' HT. MIN. 6-7' HT. MIN. 30" HT. MAX. ± 1-2' HT. 307 XYLOSMA CONGESTUM 5 GAL. 36" o.c. 995 LOW 3' HT. MIN. PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE (NATIVE PLANT) 24" BOX PER PLAN 135 MODERATE STANDARD 24" BOX LOW 36" BOX 9648 60" CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREE 60" BOX PER PLAN 94 MODERATE FULL TO THE GROUND BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME TOTAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA: 323,744 s.f. PROJECT TYPE: PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL PARK WATER SOURCE: POTABLE SUMMARY DATA NOTE:

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO) AND HAVE APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN. REQUIRED TREE SUMMARY EXISTING PARKING LOT TREES (1 TREE PER 5 STALLS) 105 (523 STALLS) - PERIMETER TREES - ABUTTING STREETS (1 TREE PER 25 LINEAR FEET) 64 (1,590 L.F.) 9 PERIMETER TREES - INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES (1 TREE PER 25 LINEAR FEET) - (0 L.F.)
- NET +26 +127
- MU-II ZONE REQUIRED EXISTING PARKING LOT TREES (1 TREE PER 5 STALLS) 109 (542 STALLS) - PERIMETER TREES - ABUTTING STREETS (1 TREE PER 30 LINEAR FEET) 69 (2,070 L.F.) 18 PERIMETER TREES - INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES (1 TREE PER 30 LINEAR FEET) 52 (1,550 L.F.)- NET +115 +162 +38 M-1 ZONE REMOVED 130 32 - REMOVED 326 2839 PROPOSED 131 182
- PROPOSED 224 213 90 1. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF ANY TREE. 2. INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS LINEARLY AGAINST THE PAVING EDGE WHERE TREES ARE WITHIN 5'-0" OF PAVEMENT OR BUILDING. 3. PROVIDE 9 CUBIC YARDS OF CERTIFIED ORGANIC AMENDMENT PER 1000 SQ. FT. FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS AT A RATIO OF 1:4 TO THE DEPTH OF NINE INCHES OF SOIL BEING THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED. ADDITIONAL OR AMENDED SOIL AMENDMENT MIX SHALL BE RECOMMENDED BY A SOIL LABORATORY UPON A SOIL TEST. 4. MULCH SHALL BE ORGANIC RECYCLED CHIPPED WOOD, DARK BROWN COLOR AT 3-INCH DEPTH. 5. ALL ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES TO BE SCREENED WITH 15 GALLON PLANT MATERIAL. 6. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON A HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE (HFHSZ). PLANTING PLAN TO COMPLY WITH CBC 2022 CHAPTER 7A. 7. ALL SCREEN WALLS GREATER THAN 3-FOOT HEIGHT TO RECEIVE VINE PLANTING FOR SCREENING AS REQUIRED. PLANTING NOTES 36" 24" ATTACHMENT N-4
UN
UN
UN
G
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
24"
24"
24"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
60"
36"
36"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
WA
WA
WA
H2O H2O
SD
UN
UN
UN
WA
WA
WA
G
G
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
36"
36"
36"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
W
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
24"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
60"
24"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
60"
24"
24"
60"
24"
60"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
36"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24" L-4
PLANTING ENLARGEMENT PLAN DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: PA / PM: SHEET

REMARKS DATE DATE REMARKS
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT KTIRV21-5032-00 / 21167 1 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2 01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
3 08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
4 01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
5 04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
6 06-20-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
7 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
8 04-17-2025 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
U:\2021\21167\cad\sheets\L-3_Design Development.dwg
Mon, 05 May 2025
Use of the plans and specifications contained
herein shall be restricted to the original site for
which they were prepared; publication thereof is
expressly limited to such use. Reproduction,
publication, or reuse by any method, in whole orin part, without the express written consent of imais prohibited. Title to said plans remains the soleproperty of ima; visual contact shall constitute acceptance of these restrictions. SIGNATURE DATE
5281 california ave
suite 350
irvine, california
92617
949.954.7500
www.imadesign.com KT PLANS CONFORM TO 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. PLANTING PLANS CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CITY OF BREA FIRE DEPARTMENT FUEL MODIFICATION GUIDELINE. IRRIGATION PLANS CONFORM TO THE CITY OF BREA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. PLANS ARE PREPARED FROM CIVIL ENGINEER BACKGROUND DATED 02/17/2025.

DJT4
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
275 VALENCIA AVENUE
NO. 2022-193

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING

CURB OPENING
CURB OPENING NORTH N.T.S.

VALENCIA AVE. SURVEYOR AVE.

NASA ST. KEYMAP
0 15 30 S C A L E: 1" = 30'-0" 60 LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK MU-II ZONE M-1 ZONE 'A' 'B' 'C' WINDOW 'C' WINDOW 'A'

MATCHLINE - SEE

BELOW LEFT WINDOW 'C'

MATCHLINE - SEE

ABOVE RIGHT WINDOW 'B' N O R T H WINDOW 'B' VALENCIA AVENUEVALENCIA AVENUE PROPOSED BUILDING

VALENCIA AVENUE

MATCHLINE - SEE

BELOW LEFT WINDOW 'B'

MATCHLINE - SEE

ABOVE RIGHT WINDOW 'A'

LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK RETAINING WALL 42" MAX. HT. TYP. PER BCC SECTION 20.236.040.E 38'-8" RETAINING WALL 30" MAX. HT. TYP. PER BCC SECTION 20.252.040.E EXISTING ART SCULPTURE TO REMAIN EXCEEDS 5'

LANDSCAPE
BUFFER ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING - INTEGRAL COLOR WITH SAWCUT JOINTS, TYP. PROPERTY LINESCREENING HEDGE 63'-6"
92' ROW

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
25' SIGNAGE SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE
92' ROW

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
20'
92' ROW SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE 7' MIN. HT. HEDGE TO SCREEN VAN LOADING/ QUEUING AREAS, TYP. SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE SCREENING HEDGE

LIMIT OF WORK
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE (VALENCIA AVE) QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON TREE LEGEND - SUNSET ZONE 23 SYMBOLS SIZE SPACING WUCOLS REMARKS VERY LOW LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX PER PLAN STANDARD HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON (NATIVE PLANT) 15 GAL. 60" o.c. QTY. 427 MODERATE 40 EXISTING TREE LEGEND SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION REMARKS EXISTING SYCAMORE TREE PROTECT IN PLACE ± 5-6' HT. 24" BOX QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK (NATIVE PLANT) FULL TO THE GROUND PER PLAN 24" PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE (NATIVE PLANT) 24" BOX PER PLAN 135 MODERATE STANDARD 24" BOX LOW 36" BOX 9648 60" CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREE 60" BOX PER PLAN 94 MODERATE FULL TO THE GROUND BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME 36" 24" WA
WA
WA

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV CAPABLE EV
B
A
C2
L10
L9
L7
C1
L2
L1 L15
L14
C6 C4 L12
L11
C3
C5
L8
L13
L6
L5
L4
L3 LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION IRRIGATION POINT-OF-CONNECTION - WATER METER/ REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY FOR IRRIGATION SERVICE PROVIDED BY CIVIL ENGINEER (PROPOSED LOCATIONS TO BE CONFIRMED) A IRRIGATION 'SMART' CONTROLLER IN FREE STANDING STAINLESS STEEL CABINET (PROPOSED LOCATIONS TO BE CONFIRMED) IRRIGATION DESIGN INTENT CONSUMING WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS HAS BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ACT 2006 AND THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 23, DIVISION 2, CHAPTER 2.7, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER B-29-15. IRRIGATION SYSTEM OVERVIEW THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH POTABLE WATER FROM NEW IRRIGATION-USE WATER METER(S). THE WATER METER WILL OPERATE A DEDICATED, REDUCED-PRESSURE TYPE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLY TO PROTECT THE POTABLE SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE A HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE A SMART CONTROLLER AND DRIP IRRIGATION FOR ALL SHRUB AREAS. TREES ARE IRRIGATED WITH LOW-FLOW HIGH EFFICIENCY POP-UP BUBBLERS ON DEDICATED CONTROL VALVES. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ON THE SITE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PREVENT RUNOFF, OVER-SPRAY, LOW HEAD DRAINAGE AND OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS WHERE WATER FLOWS OUT OF THE DESIGNATED LANDSCAPE AREA. DESCRIPTION LOW WATER USE PLANT MATERIAL WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION SYMBOL IRRIGATION HYDROZONE LEGEND B IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS LOW WATER USE PLANT MATERIAL WITH OVERHEAD SPRAY IRRIGATION (MODULAR WETLANDS) L-5 CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION PLAN DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: PA / PM: SHEET

REMARKS DATE DATE REMARKS
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT CFIRV21-5032-00 / 21167 1 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2 01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
3 08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
4 01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
5 04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
6 06-20-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
7 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
DJT4
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823
U:\2021\21167\cad\sheets\entitlement\L-5.dwg
Thu, 25 Jul 2024
Use of the plans and specifications contained
herein shall be restricted to the original site for
which they were prepared; publication thereof is
expressly limited to such use. Reproduction,
publication, or reuse by any method, in whole orin part, without the express written consent of imais prohibited. Title to said plans remains the soleproperty of ima; visual contact shall constitute acceptance of these restrictions.
5281 california ave
suite 350
irvine, california
92617
949.954.7500
www.imadesign.com

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
LN, CF
275 VALENCIA AVENUE
NO. 2022-193 PLANS CONFORM TO 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION PLANS CONFORM TO THE CITY PLANS ARE PREPARED FROM CIVIL ENGINEER BACKGROUND DATED 06/19/2024. OF BREA WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. S C A L E: 1" = 60' - 0" 0 30 60 120 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINES EXISTING EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINES EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED IRRIGATION POC 'B' PROPOSED IRRIGATION POC 'A' PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONTROLLER 'A' LOCATION PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONTROLLER 'B' LOCATION SIGNATURE DATE PROPOSED BUILDING MODULAR WETLAND MODULAR WETLAND MU-II ZONE M-1 ZONE SURVEYOR AVE

NASA ST

VALENCIA AVE

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
20'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
20'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
8'

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
8' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 5' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 5'

LANDSCAPE
5' BUFFER
EXCEEDS 5' LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
EXCEEDS 5' LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
60' ROW
60' ROW
92' ROW
9'-5" TYP.
11'-2" TYP.
38'-5"
63'-6"
22' TYP. 22'-10"
18'-3" TYP.

L-6
PLANTING IMAGES DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: PA / PM: SHEET

REMARKS DATE DATE REMARKS
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT CFIRV21-5032-00 / 21167 1 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2 01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
3 08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
4 01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
5 04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
6 06-20-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
7 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
DJT4
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92823
U:\2021\21167\cad\sheets\entitlement\L-6.dwg
Thu, 25 Jul 2024
Use of the plans and specifications contained
herein shall be restricted to the original site for
which they were prepared; publication thereof is
expressly limited to such use. Reproduction,
publication, or reuse by any method, in whole orin part, without the express written consent of imais prohibited. Title to said plans remains the soleproperty of ima; visual contact shall constitute acceptance of these restrictions.
5281 california ave
suite 350
irvine, california
92617
949.954.7500
www.imadesign.com

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
LN, CF
275 VALENCIA AVENUE
NO. 2022-193 TREES Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVERS AND VINES Dietes iridioides Fortnight Lily Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' Little John Bottlebrush Rhaphiolepis indica 'Clara' Clara Indian Hawthorn Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Acacia redolens 'Desert Carpet' Prostrate Acacia Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Carissa Macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Natal Plum Aristida purpurea Purple Threeawn Carex bromoides Brome-like Sedge Leymus condensatus Wild Rye Carex divulsa Grassland Sedge Nassella tenuissima Mexican Feather Grass Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy Elaeagnus pungens Silverberry Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Waxleaf Privet Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore LANDSCAPE AREA 8'-0" SIDEWALK 5'-0" WALKWAY VAN ACTIVITY VALENCIA AVE AREA NORTH 0 2 4 S C A L E: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8 1 Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) 2 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor) 3 Lophostemon confertus (Brisbane Box) 1 2 3 36" box Oak grown full to the ground 60" box Camphor grown full to the ground DJT4 BREA - PLANTING SECTION (YEAR 1) 25-04-14 24" box Brisbane Box LANDSCAPE AREA 8'-0" SIDEWALK 5'-0" WALKWAY VAN ACTIVITY VALENCIA AVE AREA NORTH 0 2 4 S C A L E: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8 Acacia redolens 'Desert Carpet' (Acacia) 4 Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) 2 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor) Xylosma congestum(Shiny Xylosma)
Carissa 'Green Carpet'(Natal Plum) 5 6
Lophostemon confertus (Brisbane Box) 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 6
screeninghedge
1DJT4 BREA - PLANTING SECTION (YEAR 5) 25-04-14
PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=421.8-423.0 (SLOPED 0.5%) SURVEYOR AVENUE ENTERPRICE STREET A.P.N. 320-233-03 OWNER: BREA INDUSTRIAL III LLC

60.00' R/W
AT-GRADE DOORS @ 421.8
AT-GRADE DOORS @ 423.0
(E) DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED PA (415.35) (424.50) (423.90) (427.07) (427.59)

1.0%

10.0%

5.0% PA

0.7%

1.0% 3.5%

1.6%

1.5%

1.9%

22.00' MEDIAN

3.9%

3.0%

24.00'

1.0%

2.9%

3.5%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

0.8%

2.6%

2.4% 3:1

1.0%
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
6 6 29 11 11
2 2
7 16 16
8 9
4 12
4 BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
AC4.0
D
C4.1 24 (1.0%)

2.1%

1.1%

0.5%

0.5%

1.8%
(1.8%)

1.8%

6.9%

1.0% 4.5%

0.5%

1.4% 2.0%

1.9%

0.5%
4:1

1.0%
3:1

2.1%

3.7%

0.8%

1.0%

2.5% 4:1

4.8%

1.5%

1.2%

3.5% (8.4%)

4.3%

1.0%

0.5%

0.9%

1.0%

1.0%

0.7%

3.4%

1.0%

1.5%
4:1

1.0%

1.6%

3.5%

3.5%

5.0%

8.0%

2.0%

3.5%

0.5% 2.0%

1.0%
(7.0%)

4.8%

2.0%

2.9%

3.5% 2.0%

3.5%

1.6%
14%

1.0% 2.0% 4.0%
FLAT

3.5%

3.7% 4.5%

1.0%
FLAT

2.3%
FLAT

7.6%

4.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5% 4:1 4:1

4.2%

2.0%

2.8%

4.0%

2.0%

1.0%

1.5%

4.5%

1.0%
13%

1.8%

4.8%

4.5%
(420)
(425)
(417)
(418)
(419)
(421)
(422)
(423)
(424)
(426)
(427)
(427)
(430)
(435)
(428)
(428)
(429)
(431)
(432)
(433)
(434)
(436)
(410)
(415)
(407)
(408)
(409)
(411)
(412)
(413)
(414)
(416)
(435)
(435)
415
416
417
418
419
415
411
412
413
414
415
420
420
420
425
414
416
417
418
418
418
419
419
419
421
422
423
424
424
426
427
428
428 428
429
420
425
419
421
422
423
424
426
427
428
420
425
430
419
421
422
423
424
426
427
428
429
431
432
433
434
425
423
424
412
413
414
421
422
420
425
418
419
421
422
423
424
425
422
422 423
423
424
424 426
427
427
416
420
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
421
422
423
424
426
427
(430)
(435)
428
432
434
436
(425)
(421)
(422)
(423)(424)
(426)
(427)
(415)
(412)
(413)
(414)
(416)
(417) (418)
(419)
(409)
418
421
420
421
422
(425)
(430)
(435)
(426)
(427)
(428)
(429) (431) (432) (433) (434)
(436)(437)
422
422
421
415
420
414
416
417
418
418
418
419
421
413
414
422
420
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
(5:1)
5:1
(5:1)
(2:1)
(2:1)
(5:1)
H2O H2O
H2O H2O
SD
SS
419.7 FS
(427.1)FL
(427.8)TC
(427.3)FL
(427.8)TC
(427.3)FL
419.5TC
419.0FS
421.8 FS/DOOR
423.0 FS/DOOR
417.7TC
417.2FS
418.9FS
417.8 FS 420.1 FS 421.4TC 420.9FS
417.0TG
414.5INV
4'X6'
419.8 FS
420.3 FS
420.3 FS
417.7TC
417.2FS
418.3TC
417.8FS
+0.5'
(415.5)TC(415.0)TG 411.7INV (414.6TC (414.1)TG
416.0TC
415.5FS
+0.3'
412.2TC
(411.7)TG
411.3TC
(410.8)TG
408.2INV
420.3 FS
414.9TC
(414.4)FS
(431.3)FG
422.0 FS
418.4FS
425.1TC
424.6FS
-1.2'
421.4TC
420.9FS
(433.5)FG
(435.0)FG
420.4 FS 427.0TC 426.5FS 426.4TC 424.8TC 425.9FS 424.3FS 422.1TC
421.6FS 426.7TC 426.2FS
421.3FL
419.0 FS
422.5FS
425.4TC
424.9FS
422.7 TC=TW=FS
422.5INV
422.4FS
422.9FS
424.4TC
423.9FS
-0.0'
424.2TC
423.7FS
(436.0)FG
+0.0'
424.3TC
423.8FS
-1.5'
424.2TC
423.7FS
-0.2'
423.5TC
423.0FS
+1.1'
419.2FS
+1.5'
419.2FS
416.7INV
4"X5.5'
419.2TC
418.7FS
+2.2'
422.0FS
422.0FS
419.4 FS
417.3 TC=FS
-0.2'
(408.7)FL
(412.2)RIM
(407.8)INV
(411.7)TC
(411.2)FL
(412.3)FG
(413.0)TW
(413.0)FG
416.5TC
416.0FL
414.4FS
-1.0'
417.9 FS
418.6TC
418.1FS
418.1TC
417.6FS
418.5 TC=FS
422.0TC
421.5FS
417.9TC
417.4TG
414.4INV
4"X5.5'
418.5TC
418.0FS
418.8TC
418.3FS
420.3 FS 420.3 FS +5.1'
420.3 FS
420.3 FS
420.2 FS 425.4TC 424.9FS
419.0FS 417.0FS 422.5TC 422.0FS 419.5INV 4"X5.5' 423.5TC 423.0FS 426.6FS
426.9TC
426.4FS
429.6TC
428.9FS
8" CF 429.3TC (428.6)FS 8" CF
(431.4)FG
426.6TC
426.1FS
-0.8'
(435.9)FG
422.0FS
416.3TC
415.8FS
416.7TC
(416.2)FS
+0.0' 424.0FS
421.3TC
420.8FS
(430.0)FG
420.1 FS
428.3TC
(427.6)FS
8" CF
423.3FS
424.6TC
424.1FS
428.0TC
427.5FS
423.7 FS 425.0TC 424.5FS -3.1'
424.1TC
423.6FS
-0.9'
422.3 FS/DOOR
426.6TC
426.1FS
+0.1'
415.8TC
415.3FL
412.8INV
4"X5.5'
419.5 FS
417.3TC
416.8FS 416.5TC 416.0FS 417.0TC 416.5FS
416.6FL
413.6INV
4"X5.5'
416.9TC
416.7TC
416.4FS
416.2FS
416.6TC
416.1FS
416.8TC
416.3FS
414.3TC
413.8FS
418.8TC
418.3FS
417.7TC
417.2FS
+0.4'
420.3FS
417.5TC
417.0FS
-0.8'
418.0TC
417.5FS
417.9TC
417.4FS
+2.7'
417.7TC
417.2FS
+2.0'
418.2TC
417.7FL
421.8FS
421.5FS
426.1TC
425.6FS
(424.4)TW
(423.2)FG
418.9TG
416.5INV
4'X6' +1.2'
419.9TC
420.3FS
419.4FS
+2.5'
418.2FS
+0.2'
419.0FS
+2.6' 420.0FS
418.5FS
+1.3'
419.5FS
414.4TC
413.9FS
426.0TC
425.5FS
-1.4'
424.6TC
424.1FS
(435.8)FG
416.0RIM
414.0' HGL
409.4INV
(417.1)FG
(407.8)INV

JOIN (E) SD
(410.76)RIM
(399.74)INV(399.46)INV
419.2FS
414.5TOP
411.1INV
409.5BOT
416.8FS
414.5TOP
409.5INV
A
A
A
B
E
D
D
417.3FS
414.5TOP
411.1INV
409.5BOT
D 416.7INV
E
E
411.1INV
E
F
I
I
E 416.8INV
G
417.6TG
415.1INV
4'X6'
F
424.9TC
424.4FS
G
F
A
422.5
421.8
FFE
FFE
423.0 FFE
421.8 FFE
420.6FS
421.8FFE
421.5TC
421.0FS
422.3TC
421.8FS
423.4 FG
419.6TC
419.1FS
419.9TC
419.4FS
419.9TC
419.4FS
419.9TC
419.4FS
420.3 FS
418.9TC
418.4FS
419.9TC
419.4FS
+4.6'
420.7FL
421.5FS
422.0FS
420.2TG
417.7INV
4'X6'
F
420.2TG
417.1INV
4'X6'
F
422.1TC
421.6FS
+0.6'
422.0FS
417.4TC
416.9FL
413.9INV
4"X5.5' +0.0'
E
416.0RIM
415.3FS-LP
409.1INV-IN
408.6INV-OUT
C 416.0TC 415.5FS 415.5TC 415.0FS 408.3INV
413.5INV
412.8INV
411.1INV

2.0%

1.8%

2.0%

3.5%

4.8%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

5.5%

6.4%

3.2%

2.0%

3.2%

2.0%
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT

0.5%

1.6%

0.9%

0.9%

2.5%

2.5%

1.0%

1.0%

1.8%
FLAT

4.0%

1.5%

2.1%

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP

1.1%

1.1%

2.3% 26
9 3.5%

4.0%
K
K 26 26
K 26

1.0%

1.0%
9 30"SD, L=701.5', S=0.014 APPROX 10' BGS
K 24"SD, L=+330',S=0.015 APPROX 9' BGS
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L

1.8%

1.8%
L
I
I
I (413.06) TW (411.26) FG
M (421.3) TW (419.4) FG (421.4)TW (421.0)FG
M
M
M
423.0 TW=FS
M
422.5TW
418.9FS
M
422.5TW
418.8FS
M
9 M
423.3TW
418.8FS
M
420.5TW
418.7FS
422.0TW
419.8FS
M
422.9FFE

1.5%

1.0%

1.5%

1.0%

1.5%

1.0%
418.6FS
422.0TW
418.7FS

M PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED PA PA PA

2.3%

0.7%

1.5%

1.5%

1.8%

1.8%

1.7%

1.0%

1.4%

1.7%
417.1TC
416.6FS
417.9TC
417.4FS

2.4%
(E) BUILDING

0.5%

2.2%

0.5% 410.9FG
M
418.8TC
418.3FS
418.3TC
417.8FS
420
418
419
421
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C1.1 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C1.3

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C1.0_Grading Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 3:59 PM NRAMOS 1:1

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
1 C1.0
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C1.2 MATCHLINE HATCH LEGENDSLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR INFORMATION ON SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURB INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. AREA INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CUVLERT DRYWELL PROTECT (E) SD IN PLACE CURB CUT RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C4.1) ABC
D
E
FG
H
I
JK
LM GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE EXISTING SLOPE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK PA PLANTING AREA RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TOB TOP OF BANK TW TOP OF WALL 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE 400 399 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (400) (399) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER (8") 8" GRADE BREAK RIDGE LINE SETBACK BUILDING OVERHANG AT-GRADE DOOR LOADING DOCK DOOR BLDG BUILDING RETAINING WALL SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. BOT BOTTOM OF TANK CF CURB FACE (E) EXISTING INV INVERT R/W RIGHT OF WAY TOP TOP OF TANK TYP TYPICAL BGS BELOW GROUND SURFACE SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C1.0 SHEET C1.3 SHEET C1.2 SHEET C1.1 BW BOTTOM OF WALL WA
WA A.P.N. 320-233-21 OWNER: BIRCHLUX ASSOCIATES LP

VALENCIA AVE PA PA PA PA PAPA PA PA PA PA

PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

1.5%

1.8%

1.8%

3.4%

1.8%

2.6%

2.6%

2.5%

2.4%
5%

1.9%

1.5%

1.3%

0.5% PA

2.6%

2.6%

1.0%

3.0%

2.0%

2.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

0.8%

1.5%

2.5%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

3.0%

2.5%

2.5%

3.6%

3.6%

3.6%

1.0%

3.6%

2.6%

2.6%

3.5%

2.5%

1.8%

1.0%

3.2%

1.0%

1.8%

3.4%

3.4%

3.4%

1.2%

1.8%

2.7%

1.8%

1.9%

3.4%

3.6%

1.4%

3.4%

2.7%

1.4%

2.5%

1.8%

2.7%

2.6%

1.3%

3.3%

2.7%

4.8%

3.3%

4.8%

1.6%

2.8%

1.9%

1.3%

2.9% 3.0%

2.8% PA PA
9 10 17 13 19 18 18
4 4

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
C
C4.0
(4.4%)4.8% (4.2%) (3.6%)

2.3%

2.0%

4.0%

1.6%

0.5%

1.0%

0.9%

1.5%

3.3% 4.8%

1.2%

1.8%

1.0%
(2:1)
(2:1)
(2:1)
(2:1)
(440)
(436)
(437)
(438)
(438)
(438)
(439)
(441)
(442)
(443) (444)
(444)
(444)
(445)
(444)
(446)
(447)
(448)
(448)
(430)
(435)
(440)
(445)
(427)
(428)
(429)
(431)
(432)
(433)
(434)
(436)
(437)
(438)
(439)
(441)
(442)
(443)
(444)
(446)
(447)
(448)
(427)
420
425
430
435
421
422
423
424
426
427
428
429
431
432
433
434
440
445
437
438
439
441
442
443
444
420
425
430
430
430
435
419
421
422
423
424
426
427
428 429
431
432
433
434
436
437
420
419
419
421
422
423
424
425
430
435
426
427
428
429
431
432
433
434
436
437
425
421
422
423
424
426
427
(430)
(435)
428
432
434
436
(427)
(428)
(447)
(447)
433
434
432
430
431
425
430
435
421
422
423
424
426
427
428
429
431
432
433
434
436
437
435435
440
436 436 437
437
438
438
439
(435)
(440) (434) (436) (437)
(438)
(439)
(441)
(442)
(425)
(430)
(435)
(426)
(427)
(428)
(429) (431) (432) (433) (434)
(436)(437) (438)
420
420
425
425
430
435
421
421
422
422
423
423
424
424
426
426
427
427
427
428
428
429
429
431
432
433
434
436 (2:1)
EC4.1
E C4.1
5:1

14.5% 429.06 FS

2.2%

7.7%
14%

3.0%

9.7%17

2.0%

1.4%

5.0%

3.0%

4.2%
SD
SD
424.0TC
423.5FS
+0.7'
424.0TC
423.5FS
-1.5'
422.0FS
434.7TG
432.2INV
4'X6'
(448.2)TOB
438.5TC
438.0FS
435.8TC
435.3FS 429.8TC 429.3FS +0.5'
(443.9)FG
423.5TC
423.0FS
+1.1'
418.4TC
417.9FS-LP
+1.6' 435.0FS 433.9FS
437.1FS
422.0 TG
419.5INV
4'X6'
418.4FS
419.2FS
416.7INV
4"X5.5'
422.3TC
421.8FS
+2.7'
419.2TC
418.7FS
+2.2'
422.2TG
419.2INV
4'X6'
435.6TC
435.1FS
426.3TG
423.5INV
4'X6'
422.9TC
422.4FS
422.9TC
422.4TG
420.0INV
4"X5.5'
423.0FS
434.3TC
433.8FS
428.7TG
426.3INV
4'X6'
433.9TC
433.4FS
433.4FS
432.5TC
432.0TG
429.6INV
4"X5.5'
433.5TC
433.0FS
426.6TG
424.1INV
4'X6'
430.3TG
427.7INV
4'X6'
431.1TG
428.6INV
4'X6'
(430.4)TC
(429.8)FL
433.1TW
430.6FS
(426.7)TC
(426.2)FS
423.9TC
423.4FS
422.5TC
422.0FS
+1.0'
432.4TW
429.9BW
(428.8)TC
(428.3)FL
422.0FS
(442.4)FG (441.9)FG
(447.0)TOB 424.0FS
421.3TC
420.8FS 436.0TC 435.5FS
435.2TC
434.7FS
433.2TC
432.7FS
434.9TC
434.4FS
432.0TC
431.5FS
423.9TC
423.4FS
422.0FS
+0.6'
423.5TC
423.0FS
423.7TC
423.2FS
422.3TC
421.8FS
+2.8' 421.5FS
+1.7'
(424.4)TW
(423.2)FG
(439.8)FG
(446.5)TOB
436.7TC
436.2FS
436.8FS
423.5TC
423.0FS
-0.2'
425.5FS
434.9FS
434.7TC
434.2FS
430.5FS
422.0FS
420.3TC
419.8FS
+2.4'
418.2FS
+0.2'
419.0FS
+2.6'
417.4TG
414.9INV
4'X6'
417.6TG
415.1INV
4'X6' +1.4'
420.0FS
418.5FS
+1.3'
419.5FS
418.9FS
418.3FS
419.3TC
418.8FS
419.3TC
418.8FS
423.1TC
422.6FS
420.0FS
434.5TC
434.0FS
422.6FS
418.2TG
416.0INV
4"X5.5'
422.0TG
419.5INV
4'X6' 434.8FS
430.6TG
428.1INV
4'X6'
426.3TG
423.8INV
4'X6'
427.0FS
427.2TC
426.7FS
427.4TC
426.9FS
429.4TC
428.9FS
431.4TC
430.9FS
431.6TC
431.1FS
435.1TC
434.6FS
436.0FS
429.6TC
429.1FS
432.9TC
432.4FS
432.6TC
432.1FS
419.5FS
419.6FS
421.3FS
422.9FS
422.4FS
427.9FS
431.4FS
437.8TC
437.3FS 436.1FS
435.4FS
423.5RIM
407.5INV
SDMH
425.5TG
423.0INV
4'X6'
420.0RIM
416.7HGL
412.6INV
B
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
F
F
12"
420.0RIM
412.5INV-IN
412.0INV-OUT
C
436.5TC
436.0FS
418.1TG
415.5INV
4"X5.5'
422.8FS
420.7FL
F
E
D
420.1INV-12"SD
408.6INV-27"SD
(428.1)TC
427.0FS
429.7TW
427.2FS
437.1TW
436.6FG
434.6FS
(434.4TC
(433.7)FL
435.1TW
432.6FS
(432.4TC
(431.7)FL
430.7TW
430.2FG
428.2BW
445.8TW
443.3FS
(440.1)TC
(439.4)FS
(436.1)TC
(435.4)FS
436.8FS
438.7TC
438.2FS
436.4FS
(426.6)TC
(426.0)FS
426.3TC
425.6FS
426.5 TW=FS
434.8FS
437.1TW
434.6FG
439.0TC
438.5FS
434.9TW
431.9FG
435.6TW
432.6FG
422.0TC
421.5FS
420.1TC
419.6FS
422.0FS
421.8FS
420.2TG
417.7INV
4'X6'
F
422.0TC
421.5FS
422.0FS

2.8%
FLAT

3.7%

3.7%

8.6%

3.1%

1.0%

1.0%

2.0%

4.1%
FLAT

2.5%

2.5%

4.1%

2.3%

2.2%

1.1%

1.1%

1.0%

2.4%

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
24"SD, L=+330',S=0.015 APPROX 9' BGS
K
L
L
L

1.8%
L
L
I
I
I
426.5 TW=FS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
437.1TW
436.4FG
M
M
437.2 TW/FS
M
438.7 TW/FS
M 23
M
9 (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED PA (N) ACCESS EASEMENTS (N) ACCESS EASEMENTS 435 436 435436
437
438

15.0'

16.0'
(443.1)TC
M
430.2FG
439.4TW
436.9FS
M
441.1TW
438.6FS
M
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C1.0 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C1.2

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C1.0_Grading Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 3:59 PM NRAMOS 1:1

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
2 C1.1
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S HATCH LEGENDSLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR INFORMATION ON SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. GRADING & DRAINGE NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURB INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. AREA INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CUVLERT DRYWELL PROTECT (E) SD IN PLACE CURB CUT RETAINING WALL ( SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C4.1) ABC
D
E
FG
H
I
JK
LM GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE EXISTING SLOPE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK PA PLANTING AREA RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TOB TOP OF BANK TW TOP OF WALL 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE 400 399 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (400) (399) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER (8") 8" GRADE BREAK RIDGE LINE SETBACK BUILDING OVERHANG AT-GRADE DOOR LOADING DOCK DOOR BLDG BUILDING RETAINING WALL BOT BOTTOM OF TANK CF CURB FACE (E) EXISTING INV INVERT R/W RIGHT OF WAY TOP TOP OF TANK TYP TYPICAL BGS BELOW GROUND SURFACE SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C1.0 SHEET C1.3 SHEET C1.2 SHEET C1.1

PROPOSED BUILDING
FFE=421.8-423.0
(SLOPED 0.5%) BW BOTOM OF WALL
WA
WA
WA

VALENCIA AVE PA PA PA PA PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

1.0%
5:1

1.0%

3.7%

1.5%

2.9%

3.8% 17 29
8 9
2 19 17 18

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
AC4.0
D
C4.1 24

1.8%

1.7%

1.8%

1.5%

2.1%

0.5%

1.5%
(410)
(415)
(420)
(425)
(411)
(412)
(413)
(414)
(416)
(417)
(418)
(419)
(421)
(422)
(423)
(424)
(426)
(409)
416
416
416
417
417
418
418
419
419
419
423
424
420
420
418
418
419
419
421
422
423
423
423
423
424
424
424 424
(409)
415
412
413414
416
417
415
413
414
420
421
422
421

8.4%
4:1
10 (415.73) TOB 17 (414.00) TOB

4.3%
H2O
H2O
424.0FS
423.0FFE
421.5FS
+4.9'
423.0 FS/DOOR
422.0FS
(410.7)TC
(410.0)FL
(410.2)EG
414.4TW
413.9FG
410.9FS
419.1FS
+4.6'
418.4TC
418.0EG
417.9FL
421.8 FS=FFE
420.2FS
+5.5'
422.7FS
421.5TC
421.0FS
+4.2'
420.7TC
420.2FL
419.2TC
418.7FL
418.2 TC=FS
420.3FS
+6.1'
417.4FS
420.4FS
+3.9'
424.9TC
424.4FS
423.0FS
423.4FS
424.5FG
424.0FL
424.9FG
424.4FL
423.9FS
423.0FS
417.6FG
417.1FL
414.7FG
414.2FL
426.3 RIM
(406.8)INV
(E)SDMH

JOIN (E) SD
I
(403.6)INV
422.5FFE
423.0FFE
422.8FG
422.3FL
422.3FG
421.8FL
(413.4)TC
(412.8)FL
(413.0)EG
417.1TW
413.6FS

3.5' HT MAX
(415.9)TC
(415.2)FL
418.6TW
416.1FS

2.5' HT MAX
(423.7)TC
(423.0)FL
426.4TW
423.9FS

2.5' HT MAX
(425.5)TC
(424.8)FS
426.3TC
425.6FS
419.9TC
419.4FS
+4.6'
417.1FL
417.9TC
417.4FS
420.6TW

2.5' HT MAX
418.1FS
420.9FL
421.7TC
421.2FS
424.4TW
421.9FS

2.5' HT
421.8FS
422.0FS
422.0FS

0.5%

1.0%

1.0%
FLAT
2% (3.1%)
(E) MONUMENT TO REMAIN

9.7%

4.1%

5.7%

3.1%

BLDG OVERHANG,
L
L

1.8%

1.8%
48"SD, L=557',S=0.007 APPROX 16' BGS
K 26
48"SD, L=223',(S=0.005) APPROX 16' BGS
423.4FS
423.5FS
423.9FS
425.0FS

0.9%
422.1FS
422.2FS

WALK SLOPED AWAY
FROM BUILDING AT 2%

1.0%
421.8FS

13.50'

11.7%

4.8%
M
M
M
M 20
M 17
415.5TW
415.0FG
412.0FS
M PA
417.8TC
417.3FS
416.6TC
416.1FL PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=421.8-423.0 (SLOPED 0.5%) (N) ACCESS EASEMENTS
(N) ACCESS

EASEMENTS
421.2FG
420.7FL PA PA 18
M

2.7%

3.5%

1.4%

1.5%

EMPLOYEE BREAK SHELTER
417.60 FS
417.2FG
7:1

3.8%
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C1.3 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C1.1
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C1.0_Grading Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 3:58 PM NRAMOS 1:1

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
3 C1.2
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' SEE SHEET C1.0 MATCHLINE KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S 0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' HATCH LEGENDSLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR INFORMATION ON SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURB INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. AREA INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CUVLERT DRYWELL PROTECT (E) SD IN PLACE CURB CUT RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C4.1) ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LMGRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE EXISTING SLOPE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK PA PLANTING AREA RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TOB TOP OF BANK TW TOP OF WALL 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE 400 399 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (400) (399) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER (8") 8" GRADE BREAK RIDGE LINE SETBACK BUILDING OVERHANG AT-GRADE DOOR LOADING DOCK DOOR BLDG BUILDING RETAINING WALL BOT BOTTOM OF TANK CF CURB FACE (E) EXISTING INV INVERT R/W RIGHT OF WAY TOP TOP OF TANK TYP TYPICAL BGS BELOW GROUND SURFACE SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5.SHEET C1.0 SHEET C1.3 SHEET C1.2 SHEET C1.1 BW BOTTOM OF WALL

NASA STREET

VALENCIA AVE SURVEYOR AVENUE PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (E) LOT LINE

TO BE REMOVED
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (410.77) (2.8%)
(403.79 FS)
(404.79 TC)

1.0% PA
18' LANDSCAPE SETBACK 2.1%

3.8% PA 17 17 12
2 11 28 28 29 28
9 9 PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
BC4.0
C
C4.0
D
C4.1 24

1.0%

3.6%
(0.8%) 2.4%

5.6%

2.6%

1.0%

2.0%

2.0%

3.7%

3.1%

3.2%

3.7%
5:1
(1.3%)

3.5%

3.1%

0.5%

1.5%

1.6%

1.4%

1.0% 2.4% 2.4%

2.5%

0.5%

1.6%

1.8%

3.4%

3.0%
2%
(400)
(401)(402)(403)(404)
(400)
(405)
(398)
(399)
(401)
(402)
(403)
(404)
(406)
(407)
(408)
(400)
(405)
(397)
(398)
(399)
(401)
(402)
(403)
(404)
(406)
(407)
(408)
(409)
405
410
415
402
403
404
406
407
408
409
411
412
413
414
416
405
410
415
403
404
406
407
408
409
411
412
413
414
416
418
418
419
405
405
410
410
415
415 403
403
403
403
404
404
406
406
407
407
408
408
409
409
411
411
412
412
413
413
414
414
416
416
417
405
410
406
407
408
409
411
412
413
406
407
409
410
406
406
407
408
409
411
(409)
(400) 398 402
404
(405) (404)
(406)
(407)
(408) (409)
414
415
411
412
412
413
413
414
414
405
410
415
404
406
407
408
409
411
412
413
414
410
411
412
413
400 405
398
399
401
402
403
404
406
402 403 404 30' O.C. TYP
405
405
405
403
404
406
407
407
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
(N) APPROACH W=32' DRIVEWAY
(2:1) 29
(2:1)
MIN

56.5'
(397.74)
(399.55)
(414.00) TOB
5:1
12%
5:1
(405.40 TC)

2.9%

1.2%
H2O H2O
SD
400.8TC
(400.1±)FL
(398.2)TC
(397.7)FS(400.3)FG 404.9TC 403.4FS 403.5TC 403.0TG 400.5INV 4"X5.5' (413.0)TW (413.0)FG 416.5TC
416.0FL
401.8TG
398.8NV
4'X6'
414.4FS
-1.0' 407.5EG 407.3FL
408.9TC
408.4FS
402.3TG
399.3INV
4'X6'
(408.8)TC
(404.8)TC
(404.3)FS
408.5TW
405.0FS
411.4TC
410.9FL
407.9INV
4"X5.5'
404.9TC
404.4FS
405.4TC
404.9FS
(407.0)TW
(399.8)BW 420.3 FS +5.1'
418.4TC
418.0EG
417.9FL
410.4TC
409.9FS
405.1TC
404.6FS
(403.8)TC
(407.0)TC
(406.3)FL
(411.0)TOB
(400.6±)TC
(399.9±)FL
401.0 TW/FS
401.9 TW/FS
400.6TG
397.4INV
401.2TG
402.5TC
402.0FS 405.0FS (408.3)FS 408.2TC 407.7FS 405.5EG 405.3FL 409.2TC
408.7FS 407.7FS
418.2 TC=FS
417.4FS
420.3FS
417.9TC
417.7TC
417.2FS
+2.0'
418.2TC
417.7FL
416.7TC
416.2FL
405.0TC
404.5FS
401.9FS
408.3TC
407.8FS
414.4TC
413.9FS
405.2TC
404.7FS
410.8TG
408.0INV
4'X6'
416.9 FS
401.9TC
401.4FS 406.2TC 405.7FS
403.75 FS 408.0TG 405.0INV
407.4TG
404.4INV
4'X6' 407.2RIM 395.6INV 406.3RIM 405.5RIM 404.8RIM 403.2RIM 395.9INV POOLING DEPTH=5.6' I
396.3INV
400.0TOP
396.0INV
D
E
F
F
F
E
A
A
H
J
J
F
396.0INV
D
(397.8)RIM
(397.3)FL
(391.0)INV
(397.7)RIM
(390.1)INV
(397.1)RIM
(389.9)INV-IN
(389.8)INV-OUT
D
403.6TC
403.1FS
402.7TC
402.2FL
399.2INV
4"X5.5'
408.8TG
405.8INV
4'X6'
F
F
404.7TC
404.2FL
399.4
INV
409.4TG
406.4INV
4'X6'
F
401.3TW
397.8FS 404.3TW 403.8FG
(398.7)TC
402.4TW
401.9FG
398.9FS
405.4TW
404.9FG
401.9BW
(399.6)TC
403.4TW
399.9FS
(413.0)TOB
410.5TW
410.0FG
(408.5)TC
(407.8)FL
409.0FS
410.0FS
410.7TW
407.2FS
(398.6)TC
403.1TC
402.6FS
(402.2)TC
406.0TW
402.6FS
407.9TW
404.4FS
402.8TG
399.8INV
4'X6'
F
401.6±TC
(400.8)FL
404.3TW
403.8FG

2.5'HT
419.9TC
419.4FS
+4.6'
E
401.5TC
401.0TG
398.0INV
4'X6'
F
402.9EG
402.7FL

3.1%

15.0'
2%
10:1

0.8%
2%
5:1

2.7%

2.0%
FLAT
400.0'HGL
395.9INV-IN
B
396.0INV
27"SD
(E) ESMT TO BE QUITCLAIMED
14' LANDSCAPE
SETBACK 26
9 26 JOIN (E) 18"SD (395.5)INV
K
48"SD, L=223',(S=0.005) APPROX 16' BGS
K
(413.06) TW
(411.26) FG
M
M
409.6TW
409.1FG
412.3TW
408.8FG
M
M
M
M
M 29
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M PA
418.7TC
418.2FS
406.2TC
405.7FS
415.7TC
415.2FS
415.0FS
416.2TC
415.7FS PA
417.5TC
417.0FS
417.8TC
417.3FS
416.6TC
416.1FL

1.5% PA (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED 404.0RIM 395.8INV 395.6INV J
404 2.4%

1.0%

1.4%

1.7%
417.1TC
416.6FS

0.5%
406.4TC
405.9FS

3.5%

1.7%

3.4%

2.9%
406.3TC
405.8FS

2.0% 403.0TC
402.5FS

1.0%

2.0%

3.5%

1.1%

3.5%
416.5TC
416.0FL

3.4%

1.3%
402.8TG
398.8INV
4'X6'
F

1.5%

3.5%

3.5%
408.1TG
405.1INV
4'X6'
F
403.2TC
402.7FS
403.8TC
403.3FS

1.8%

2.0%

2.8%
408.3TG
405.3INV
4'X6'
F

3.0%

1.2%
417.2TC
416.7FS
417.3TC
416.8FL

2.3%

3.4%

3.6%

1.6%

3.7%

0.5%

0.9%3.5%
406.0TC
405.5FS

1.5%

3.7%
417.2TC
416.7FL
416.3FL

0.7%

0.5%

1.4%

1.5%

1.5%

2.2%

1.5%

4.5%
418.1 TC=FS
417.6TC
417.1FS

3.6%

1.5%

2.5%

1.0%

15.0'

6.0'

15.0'

15.0'

2.7%

1.5%
417.1FS

1.4%

4.5%

1.0%

1.5%

3.5%

1.5%

2.6%
414.5TC
414.0FL

3.2%

3.2%

2.9%

1.9%

2.1%

3.5%
405.1TC
404.6FS
404.0TG
401.0INV
4'X6'
F
404.4TC
403.9FL
400.9INV
4"X5.5'
E
403.4TC
402.9FS

0.5%

3.5%

3.1% 410.9FG
M

1.5%
(412.3) TOB
412.5TW
409.0FS
M
411.8TW
408.3FS
M

4.4%

3.4%

3.4%

4.7%
401.85 FS

3.5%

1.1%

2.4%

2.0%

3.7%

4.5%

3.8%

3.7%

3.4%
410.0TW
406.5FS
M
397.9INV

3.0%

2.7%
409.2TG
406.2INV
4'X6'
F

3.6% 4.2%

4.7%

3.6%

4.3% 4.3%

3.7%

3.6%

3.8%

4.5%

3.8%

3.8%
(N) ACCESS

EASEMENT
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C1.2 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C1.0
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C1.0_Grading Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 3:57 PM NRAMOS 1:1

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
4 C1.3
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' HATCH LEGENDSLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR INFORMATION ON SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURB INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. AREA INLET CATCH BASIN. SIZE PER PLAN. ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CUVLERT DRYWELL PROTECT (E) SD IN PLACE CURB CUT RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C4.1) ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE EXISTING SLOPE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK PA PLANTING AREA RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TOB TOP OF BANK TW TOP OF WALL 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE 400 399 EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (400) (399) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER (8") 8" GRADE BREAK RIDGE LINE SETBACK BUILDING OVERHANG AT-GRADE DOOR LOADING DOCK DOOR BLDG BUILDING RETAINING WALL BOT BOTTOM OF TANK CF CURB FACE (E) EXISTING INV INVERT R/W RIGHT OF WAY TOP TOP OF TANK TYP TYPICAL BGS BELOW GROUND SURFACE SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C1.0 SHEET C1.3 SHEET C1.2 SHEET C1.1 BW BOTTOM OF WALL

SURVEYOR AVENUE
ENTERPRISE STREET A.P.N. 320-233-03 OWNER: BREA INDUSTRIAL III LLC

60.00' R/W PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPOSED

BUILDING
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'A' ON SHEET C2.2 SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'B' ON SHEET C2.2 VAN CANOPY OVERHEAD, TYP. BATTERY STORAGE PER 2022 TITLE 24 VAN CANOPY OVERHEAD, TYP. SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'C' ON SHEET C2.2 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
A
C
A
H
D
H
H
E
F
C
A
I
P
P
O
P
P
K
K
M
M
K
M
L
M
K
I
O
6 6 11 11
2 2
7 16 16
9 8
9 9
9 4 12
4 B
A
T
C
U
A
B
U
U
I
Q
D
Y
Y WW BY OTHERS TYP. D JJ

25.0' 25.0'
Q
R
RQ 26 26 TYP.

A TYP.

O PA PA PA TYP.

O PA
T
O TYP.

O TYP.

O TYP. TYP. 26 26
Q
R TYP.

O PA

32.0'
(E) HH PA
R
Q

W KK BY OTHERS (E) BUILDING CC BY OTHERS
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C2.1 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C2.3

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C2.0_Civil Site Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:07 PM NRAMOS 1:1

CIVIL SITE PLAN
5 C2.0
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C2.2 MATCHLINE AT GRADE DOOR LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE SIGN BOLLARD LOADING DOCK DOOR N/A TREES PAVEMENT MARKINGS HATCH LEGENDCONCRETE PAVING ASPHALT PAVING PA PLANTING AREA ROOF OVERHANG FENCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES VERTICAL CURB CURB AND GUTTER V-GUTTER LIGHT POLE STAIRS TRASH ENCLOSURE FENCE GATE SPEED BUMP WHEEL STOP EV CHARGER PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW BOLLARDS PARKING STRIPING VAN LOADING/QUEUING STRIPING CANOPY COLUMN STOP BAR STOP SIGN ENHANCED PAVED ENTRY DIAGONAL NO PARKING STRIPING SIDEWALK EARTHEN SWALE RIDE SHARE SHELTER MONUMENT SIGN RETAINING WALL ONE-WAY SIGN ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM
NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z N/A SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C2.0 SHEET C2.3 SHEET C2.2 SHEET C2.1 OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES BICYCLE LANE ROAD MARKINGS BICYCLE LANE CENTER STRIPING PLANTING STRIP NOT USED CURB RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK STRIPING FLUSH CURB RETAINING WALL BENCH WAYFINDING AND TRAIL BRANDING SIGNAGE PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK CULVERT TO (E) STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN STOP SIGN STOP BAR NOT USED DIRECTIONAL ROAD MARKINGS SHARROW ROAD MARKINGS "ROAD NARROWS" SIGN CENTERLINE STRIPING MODIFY PUBLIC STREET LIGHT BUS STOP TURNOUT 'LEFT TURN ONLY' STRIPING CONCRETE SIDEWALK ROADWAY STRIPING AABBCCDD EEFF GGHHII JJ KKLL MMNN OOPPQQRRSS TTUUVV WWXX PARKING STALL NOTES FOR PARKING STALL DESIGNATIONS AND LOCATIONS SEE SHEETS 3 AND 5.

A.P.N. 320-233-21 OWNER: BIRCHLUX ASSOCIATES LP

VALENCIA AVE

PROPOSED

BUILDING
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED VAN CANOPY OVERHEAD, TYP. SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'D' HEREON (N) ACCESS EASEMENT (N) ACCESS EASEMENT 93' ROW PA PA PA PA PAPA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
A 01
L
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
K
M
L
L
L
L
9 9 17 17 13 23 19 18
4 4
U
P
A
U
I
R
R
R
R
U
R
R
R
R
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
D
D
U
U
U
K
M
C
U TYP. (E) ESMT TO BE QUITCLAIMED TYP.

D PA 18 (E) ESMT TO BE QUITCLAIMED PA TYP.

O TYP.

A TYP.

O TYP.

O

32.0'

32.0'

32.0'

32.0'

32.0' 32.0'
Q

32.0'

32.0' WW WW WW EE TT

22.4'
(E) BUILDING

52.1'
R25'
(E) DRIVEWAY 28' WIDE TYP. TYP. 10
R
Q
S
X
R25'
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C2.0 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C2.2

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C2.0_Civil Site Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:10 PM NRAMOS 1:1

CIVIL SITE PLAN
6 C2.1
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S HATCH LEGENDPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVING PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING PA PROPOSED PLANTING AREA CONSTRUCTION NOTES VERTICAL CURB CURB AND GUTTER V-GUTTER LIGHT POLE STAIRS TRASH ENCLOSURE FENCE GATE SPEED BUMP WHEEL STOP EV CHARGER PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW BOLLARDS PARKING STRIPING VAN LOADING/QUEUING STRIPING CANOPY COLUMN STOP BAR STOP SIGN ENHANCED PAVED ENTRY DIAGONAL NO PARKING STRIPING SIDEWALK EARTHEN SWALE RIDE SHARE SHELTER MONUMENT SIGN RETAINING WALL ONE-WAY SIGN ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM
NO
P
Q
R
S
TU
VWXY
ZAT GRADE DOOR LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE SIGN BOLLARD LOADING DOCK DOOR N/A TREES PAVEMENT MARKINGS ROOF OVERHANG FENCE N/A SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C2.0 SHEET C2.3 SHEET C2.2 SHEET C2.1 SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'D' OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES BICYCLE LANE ROAD MARKINGS BICYCLE LANE CENTER STRIPING PLANTING STRIP NOT USED CURB RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK STRIPING FLUSH CURB RETAINING WALL BENCH WAYFINDING AND TRAIL BRANDING SIGNAGE PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK CULVERT TO (E) STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN STOP SIGN STOP BAR NOT USED DIRECTIONAL ROAD MARKINGS SHARROW ROAD MARKINGS "ROAD NARROWS" SIGN CENTERLINE STRIPING MODIFY PUBLIC STREET LIGHT BUS STOP TURNOUT 'LEFT TURN ONLY' STRIPING CONCRETE SIDEWALK ROADWAY STRIPING AABBCCDDEEFF GGHHII JJ KKLL MM NNOOPPQQRRSSTTUUVV WWXX PARKING STALL NOTES FOR PARKING STALL DESIGNATIONS AND LOCATIONS SEE SHEETS 3 AND 5.

VALENCIA AVE PROPOSED BUILDING

EV EV EV EV EV

PROPOSED

BUILDING
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
LA ENTRADA DR VAN CANOPY OVERHEAD, TYP.
(E) STRIPING EMPLOYEE BREAK SHELTER (N) ACCESS EASEMENT (N) ACCESS EASEMENT 92' ROW PA PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. PA TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
P
P 17 17 17 24
8 9
2 20 19
U
V
U
O
A
A
B 13 10 TYP.

D PA TYP.

O 26
O TYP. TYP.

A VV UU XX XX XX WW WW WW EE PA (E) BUILDING, TYP. (E) BUILDING, TYP.

R25'
(E) DRIVEWAY 51' WIDE TYP. TYP. TYP. 29
S
Q
R
R26'
R25'
R22'
(E) DRIVEWAY 43' WIDE TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
Q
S
R (E) DRIVEWAY 51' WIDE
R30'
R36' TYP. TYP. TYP.

S
Q
R
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C2.3 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C2.1
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C2.0_Civil Site Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:11 PM NRAMOS 1:1

CIVIL SITE PLAN
7 C2.2
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C2.0 MATCHLINE HATCH LEGENDCONCRETE PAVING ASPHALT PAVING PA PLANTING AREA CONSTRUCTION NOTES VERTICAL CURB CURB AND GUTTER V-GUTTER LIGHT POLE STAIRS TRASH ENCLOSURE FENCE GATE SPEED BUMP WHEEL STOP EV CHARGER PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW BOLLARDS PARKING STRIPING VAN LOADING/QUEUING STRIPING CANOPY COLUMN STOP BAR STOP SIGN ENHANCED PAVED ENTRY DIAGONAL NO PARKING STRIPING SIDEWALK EARTHEN SWALE RIDE SHARE SHELTER MONUMENT SIGN RETAINING WALL ONE-WAY SIGN ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM
NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z AT GRADE DOOR LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE SIGN BOLLARD LOADING DOCK DOOR N/A TREES PAVEMENT MARKINGS ROOF OVERHANG FENCE N/A SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C2.0 SHEET C2.3 SHEET C2.2 SHEET C2.1 SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'A' SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'B' SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'C' OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES BICYCLE LANE ROAD MARKINGS BICYCLE LANE CENTER STRIPING PLANTING STRIP NOT USED CURB RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK STRIPING FLUSH CURB RETAINING WALL BENCH WAYFINDING AND TRAIL BRANDING SIGNAGE PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK CULVERT TO (E) STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN STOP SIGN STOP BAR NOT USED DIRECTIONAL ROAD MARKINGS SHARROW ROAD MARKINGS "ROAD NARROWS" SIGN CENTERLINE STRIPING MODIFY PUBLIC STREET LIGHT BUS STOP TURNOUT 'LEFT TURN ONLY' STRIPING CONCRETE SIDEWALK ROADWAY STRIPING AABBCCDDEEFF GGHHII JJ KKLL MMNNOO PPQQRRSSTTUUVV WWXX PARKING STALL NOTES FOR PARKING STALL DESIGNATIONS AND LOCATIONS SEE SHEETS 3 AND 5. (N) DRIVEWAY 14' WIDE
PA TYP. TYP. 12
S
R
Q 24
Z
R30.00'
R44.00'
R1.00'
PA TYP.

Q
S
PA
(N) DRIVEWAY 32' WIDE TYP.

R TYP. GG GG EE EE FF AAOO
PA
R20.00'
R20.00'
(N) ACCESS EASEMENT

NASA STREET

VALENCIA AVE SURVEYOR AVENUE

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

EV EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E)

NASA STREET (E) PL SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'E' HEREON SEE DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'F' HEREON 60' ROW
60' ROW PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PAPA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. PA PA PA TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

A
B
C
O
K
M
L
L
L
L 17 17
6 11 28 29 28 29 29 28
9 9
A
B
I
W
B
D
I
A
C
A
B
D

X HH HH HH

12.0'

12.0' NN KK BY OTHERS EE EEFF IIJJ BB NN MM MAINTAIN CLR SPACE FOR ADA

5.0' WALK TYP.

3.0' PA TYP.

10.0' BIKE LANE HH HH PA 26

PRIVATE DRIVEWAY

APPROACH

26.0'

26.0'

26.0'

26.0'

32.0'

32.0'

32.0'

32.0'

32.0'

28.0'

32.0'

32.0'
L TYP. WW WW WW EE PA PA PA TYP.

B TYP.

U TYP. TYP.

U TYP.

33.8'

50.0' TYP.

C KK BY OTHERS 10' BIKE LANE BY OTHERS WW (E) TO REMAIN (E) TO REMAIN WW (E) 5' SIDEWALK NN PA

18.4'

32.0'

15.0'

15.0'

15.0'

15.0'

6.0'
(E) BUILDING, TYP.
(N) ACCESS EASEMENT CC CC 2' PLANTING STRIP BY OTHERS WW BY OTHERS THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C2.2 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C2.0
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C2.0_Civil Site Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 5:22 PM NRAMOS 1:1

CIVIL SITE PLAN
8 C2.3
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S HATCH LEGENDPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVING PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING PA PROPOSED PLANTING AREA CONSTRUCTION NOTES VERTICAL CURB CURB AND GUTTER V-GUTTER LIGHT POLE STAIRS TRASH ENCLOSURE FENCE GATE SPEED BUMP WHEEL STOP EV CHARGER PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW BOLLARDS PARKING STRIPING VAN LOADING/QUEUING STRIPING CANOPY COLUMN STOP BAR STOP SIGN ENHANCED PAVED ENTRY DIAGONAL NO PARKING STRIPING SIDEWALK EARTHEN SWALE RIDE SHARE SHELTER MONUMENT SIGN RETAINING WALL ONE-WAY SIGN ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM
NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z AT GRADE DOOR LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE SIGN BOLLARD LOADING DOCK DOOR N/A TREES PAVEMENT MARKINGS ROOF OVERHANG FENCE N/A SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. SHEET C2.0 SHEET C2.3 SHEET C2.2 SHEET C2.1 SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'E' SCALE: 1" = 10' DRIVEWAY ENLARGEMENT 'F' OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES BICYCLE LANE ROAD MARKINGS BICYCLE LANE CENTER STRIPING PLANTING STRIP NOT USED CURB RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK STRIPING FLUSH CURB RETAINING WALL BENCH WAYFINDING AND TRAIL BRANDING SIGNAGE PUBLIC CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK CULVERT TO (E) STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN STOP SIGN STOP BAR NOT USED DIRECTIONAL ROAD MARKINGS SHARROW ROAD MARKINGS "ROAD NARROWS" SIGN CENTERLINE STRIPING MODIFY PUBLIC STREET LIGHT BUS STOP TURNOUT 'LEFT TURN ONLY' STRIPING CONCRETE SIDEWALK ROADWAY STRIPING AABBCCDDEEFF GG HHII JJ KKLL MMNNOO PPQQRRSSTTUUVV WW XX PARKING STALL NOTES FOR PARKING STALL DESIGNATIONS AND LOCATIONS SEE SHEETS 3 AND 5.

PROPOSED

BUILDING
FFE=421.8-423.0
(SLOPED 0.5%) SURVEYOR AVENUE
ENTERPRICE STREET A.P.N. 320-233-03 OWNER: BREA INDUSTRIAL III LLC

1.5%

1.0%

1.5%

1.0%

1.5%

1.0%
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 SEE SHEET C3.1 30' MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C3.3

MATCHLINE
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C3.0_Cut & Fill Plan.dwg 6/21/2024 8:32 AM NRAMOS 1:1

CUT & FILL PLAN
9 C3.0

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C3.2 MATCHLINE LEGEND LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR CUT-FILL LINE ELEVATIONS TABLE DESC CUT FILL MINIMUM ELEVATION -20.94 0.00 MAXIMUM ELEVATION 0.00 7.50 COLOR TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT (CY) FILL (CY) GENERAL 77,300 58,800 OVEREXCAVATION 8,300 UNDERGROUND DETENTION 5,310 METHANE MITIGATION 10,170 NET 25,680 [EXPORT] NOTE: THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES HEREON ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. WARE MALCOMB DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM HIS/HER OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFF BEFORE SUBMITTING A BID FOR ANY PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THESE PLANS. SINCE SLAB ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING ARE UNKNOWN, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ALONG EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS INTERPOLATED ACROSS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR AN AVERAGED VALUE. TOTALS ARE A RAW COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING GRADE AND FINISHED GRADE. TOTALS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SHRINKING OR SWELLING OF EXCAVATED SOILS, UTILITY TRENCHING, BUILDING FOUNDATIONS OR PAVING SECTIONS. PROJECT WILL INCORPORATE FULL METHANE MITIGATION. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF METHANE MITIGATION SYTEM ASSUMED TO BE 18" THICK BELOW PAD ELEVATION. SHEET C3.0 SHEET C3.3 SHEET C3.2 SHEET C3.1 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24
A.P.N. 320-233-21 OWNER: BIRCHLUX ASSOCIATES LP

VALENCIA AVE
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C3.0 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C3.2

MATCHLINE
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C3.0_Cut & Fill Plan.dwg 6/21/2024 8:34 AM NRAMOS 1:1 CUT & FILL PLAN 10 C3.1

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S LEGEND LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR CUT-FILL LINE ELEVATIONS TABLE DESC CUT FILL MINIMUM ELEVATION -20.94 0.00 MAXIMUM ELEVATION 0.00 7.50 COLOR SHEET C3.0 SHEET C3.3 SHEET C3.2 SHEET C3.1 TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT (CY) FILL (CY) GENERAL 77,300 58,800 OVEREXCAVATION 8,300 UNDERGROUND DETENTION 5,310 METHANE MITIGATION 10,170 NET 25,680 [EXPORT] NOTE: THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES HEREON ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. WARE MALCOMB DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM HIS/HER OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFF BEFORE SUBMITTING A BID FOR ANY PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THESE PLANS. SINCE SLAB ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING ARE UNKNOWN, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ALONG EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS INTERPOLATED ACROSS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR AN AVERAGED VALUE. TOTALS ARE A RAW COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING GRADE AND FINISHED GRADE. TOTALS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SHRINKING OR SWELLING OF EXCAVATED SOILS, UTILITY TRENCHING, BUILDING FOUNDATIONS OR PAVING SECTIONS. PROJECT WILL INCORPORATE FULL METHANE MITIGATION. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF METHANE MITIGATION SYTEM ASSUMED TO BE 18" THICK BELOW PAD ELEVATION. 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24

EV EV EV EV EV

VALENCIA AVE

PROPOSED

BUILDING
FFE=421.8-423.0
(SLOPED 0.5%)
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C3.3 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C3.1

MATCHLINE
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C3.0_Cut & Fill Plan.dwg 6/21/2024 8:34 AM NRAMOS 1:1 CUT & FILL PLAN 11 C3.2

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C3.0 MATCHLINE LEGEND LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR CUT-FILL LINE ELEVATIONS TABLE DESC CUT FILL MINIMUM ELEVATION -20.94 0.00 MAXIMUM ELEVATION 0.00 7.50 COLOR SHEET C3.0 SHEET C3.3 SHEET C3.2 SHEET C3.1 TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT (CY) FILL (CY) GENERAL 77,300 58,800 OVEREXCAVATION 8,300 UNDERGROUND DETENTION 5,310 METHANE MITIGATION 10,170 NET 25,680 [EXPORT] NOTE: THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES HEREON ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. WARE MALCOMB DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM HIS/HER OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFF BEFORE SUBMITTING A BID FOR ANY PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THESE PLANS. SINCE SLAB ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING ARE UNKNOWN, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ALONG EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS INTERPOLATED ACROSS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR AN AVERAGED VALUE. TOTALS ARE A RAW COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING GRADE AND FINISHED GRADE. TOTALS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SHRINKING OR SWELLING OF EXCAVATED SOILS, UTILITY TRENCHING, BUILDING FOUNDATIONS OR PAVING SECTIONS. PROJECT WILL INCORPORATE FULL METHANE MITIGATION. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF METHANE MITIGATION SYTEM ASSUMED TO BE 18" THICK BELOW PAD ELEVATION. 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

EV EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE
EV

NASA STREET

VALENCIA AVE SURVEYOR AVENUE
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SEE SHEET C3.2 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C3.0

MATCHLINE
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C3.0_Cut & Fill Plan.dwg 6/21/2024 8:35 AM NRAMOS 1:1 CUT & FILL PLAN 12 C3.3

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S LEGEND LIMIT OF GRADING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR CENTERLINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR CUT-FILL LINE ELEVATIONS TABLE DESC CUT FILL MINIMUM ELEVATION -20.94 0.00 MAXIMUM ELEVATION 0.00 7.50 COLOR SHEET C3.0 SHEET C3.3 SHEET C3.2 SHEET C3.1 TOTAL SITE PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT (CY) FILL (CY) GENERAL 77,300 58,800 OVEREXCAVATION 8,300 UNDERGROUND DETENTION 5,310 METHANE MITIGATION 10,170 NET 25,680 [EXPORT] NOTE: THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES HEREON ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. WARE MALCOMB DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM HIS/HER OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFF BEFORE SUBMITTING A BID FOR ANY PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THESE PLANS. SINCE SLAB ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING ARE UNKNOWN, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ALONG EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS INTERPOLATED ACROSS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR AN AVERAGED VALUE. TOTALS ARE A RAW COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING GRADE AND FINISHED GRADE. TOTALS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SHRINKING OR SWELLING OF EXCAVATED SOILS, UTILITY TRENCHING, BUILDING FOUNDATIONS OR PAVING SECTIONS. PROJECT WILL INCORPORATE FULL METHANE MITIGATION. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF METHANE MITIGATION SYTEM ASSUMED TO BE 18" THICK BELOW PAD ELEVATION. 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24
390 400 410 420 430 440 450 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50 30+00

1.78%
(N) CURB (E) N'LY PL
-2.87% EXISTING GRADE DAYLIGHT PROPOSED GRADE

1.93% FLOW LINE VAN LOADING AREA (N) VALLEY GUTTER PARKING LOT PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=423-421.8 (SLOPED 0.50%) GRADE BREAK PLANTED MEDIAN (N) 8"FW (E) 96"W
(N) STORMWATER DETENTION TANK (CLOSED)
(N) 30"SD VAN STAGING AREA RIDGELINE (N) CURB W'LY R/W VALENCIA AVE GRADE BREAK -1.06% 26.0' 24.4' -1.71% -1.85%

2.94%
-2.33%
-8.34% 17.3' (E) DRY UT ESMT 410 420 430 440 450 410 420 430 440 450 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR E'LY R/W(N) CURB & GUTTER (N)CURB (N) CURB (N) VALLEY GUTTER FINISHED GRADE PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=422.50 @ SECTION A-A TRUCK COURT (N) PUBLIC WALK & BUS TURNOUT W'LY R/W -1.00% E'LY R/W DRIVE AISLE 92.5' R/W 50.0' -3.49%
-2.29%
-3.47% EXISTING GRADE DAYLIGHT (N) 2.5' H RETAINING WALL (N) EARTHEN SWALE (N) 16.5' ACCESS EASEMENT (E) 48"SD
(N) 8"FW VALENCIA CL SURVEYOR AVE CL 60' R/W (E) TELECOM & RETAINING WALL W'LY R/W CONTINOUES HEDGE & PERIMETER TREES PER LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 (E) 6' DRY UT ESMT (E) 8' DRY UT ESMT 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 N'LY R/W (E) CURB & GUTTER (N) CURB & GUTER (N) CURB DRIVE AISLE PARKING SPACES (N) CURB 32' DRIVE AISLE (N) CURB PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=423-421.8 (SLOPED 0.50%) 59' VAN STAGING AREA -1.71% -3.11%
-0.48% EXISTING GRADE DAYLIGHT PROPOSED GRADE
-2.71% -1.54%
-2.43%
-9.58% FLOWLINE (N) RET. WALL. SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET C4.1 S'LY R/W 60' R/W NASA STREET CL (N) TRACKS TRAIL EXTENSION (N) 12"SD (E) 10"WW (E) 48"SD 20.3' (E) 30"GAS VAN LOADING AREA 22' PLANTED MEDIAN (N) 8"FW 23.6' 49.6' 5' PCC WALK 10' AC TRAIL (E) DRY UT ESMT 405.3 TW 401.8 BW (N) 18"SD (N) ACCESS ESMT WIDTH VARIES 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE N'LY PL (N) CURB -4.11%
-1.78%
-0.48% PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=423-421.8 (SLOPED 0.50%) (N) CURB MEDIAN (N) CURB DRIVE AISLE DRIVE AISLE (N) CURB -3.74%
-4.78% PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR EXISTING GRADE DAYLIGHT
-24.22%
-0.99%
-4.06%
-1.78%
-4.28%
-2.56% VAN STAGING AREA (N) VALLEY GUTTER (N) CURB (N) CURB FINISHED GRADE PLANTED MOUND DAYLIGHT (N) EARTHEN SWALE E'LY R/W PLANTED MEDIAN (N) CURB VAN LOADING AREA VAN LOADING AREA GRADE BREAK -1.07% PLANTED MEDIAN VAN STAGING AREA PRIVATE PROPERTY (N) 8"FW (E) 24"SD (E) 8"SS 12.0' (E) 96"W (N) 15"SD 44.7' (N) 24"SD (N) 8"FW 26.8' 46.6' (N) 6"SS (E) 30"GAS 50.5' (E) 48"SD 23.5' (E) 10"WW 18.4' (N) 9"SD 50.0' W'LY R/W (E) PLANTED AREA (E) CURB & GUTTER SURVEYOR AVE CL (N) TRACKS TRAIL EXTENSION BY OTHER 60' R/W (E) 6' & 10' DRY UT ESMT (E) 38.5' SD & SS ESMT THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C4.0_Site Sections.dwg

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6/21/2024 8:38 AM NRAMOS 1:1
SITE SECTIONS 13 C4.0
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S
0 SCALE: Hor: 1" = SCALE: Vert: 1" = 25 50 100 50' 10' SECTION B-B STA: 10+00 TO 26+00 SECTION A-A STA: 10+00 TO 23+00 A
A
C
C
B
B

SEE BELOW

MATCHLINE

SEE ABOVE
MATCHLINE GROUNDWATER NOTE: GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN ANY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATORY BORINGS, WITH THE DEEPEST BORING ADVANCED TO ABOUT A 95-FOOT DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE. SECTION C-C STA: 10+00 TO 30+00 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24
420 430 440 450 420 430 440 450 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 EXISTING GRADE (N) CURB (N) VALLEY GUTTER DAYLIGHT (N) VALLEY GUTTER (N) VALLEY GUTTER (N) VALLEY GUTTER (N) CURB 16' WALK AISLE (N) CURB 15.5' WALK AISLE PARKING LOT (N) CURB W'LY PL W'LY R/W -1.40% -1.48% -0.69% -3.86%
-2.00%
-3.42% -1.73%
-1.13%
-1.69%
(N) RIDGELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY (N)15"SD (N)9"SD E'LY R/W VALENCIA CL 92.5' R/W (N) TIERED RETAINING WALLS (E) 28' SD & SS ESMT (E) 8' DRY UT ESMT 400 410 420 430 400 410 420 430 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 EXISTING GRADE (N) CURB (N) VALLEY GUTTER PARKING LOT (N) VALLEY GUTTER (N) VALLEY GUTTER W'LY R/W W'LY 15' R/W WALKWAY DAYLIGHT MEDIAN -0.64% (N) EARTHEN SWALE -1.03% -0.99% -1.01% -2.25%
-2.18%
-2.94%
-1.52%

2.48%

1.75% -1.61% (N) CHARGING PAD 50.0'92.5' R/W E'LY R/W VALENCIA CL SURVEYOR AVE CL 60' R/W E'LY R/W (N) TRACKS TRAIL EXTENSION BY OTHERS (N) 8"SD (N) VALLEY (N) FLOWLINE GUTTER 15' WALKWAY MEDIAN 6' CHARGING PAD 15' WALKWAY MEDIAN (N) VALLEY GUTTER 15' WALKWAY MEDIAN (N) 10"SD (N) 10"SD (N) 15"SD (E) 6' & 10' DRY UT ESMT (E) 8' DRY UT ESMT THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C4.0_Site Sections.dwg

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6/21/2024 8:40 AM NRAMOS 1:1
SITE SECTIONS 14 C4.1
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S
0 SCALE: Hor: 1" = SCALE: Vert: 1" = 25 50 100 50' 10' SECTION E-E STA: 9+50 TO 17+50 D
D
E
E SECTION D-D STA: 9+50 TO 19+50 GROUNDWATER NOTE: GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN ANY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATORY BORINGS, WITH THE DEEPEST BORING ADVANCED TO ABOUT A 95-FOOT DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE. TOP OF WALL (TW)

FINISHED GRADE (FG) AT TOP OF WALL FINISHED GRADE (FG) AT BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) EXPOSED HEIGHT (H) 42" MAX H 6" TYP 12" TYPD=24" W=36" NOTE: DETAIL IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE. OFFSET FOOTING TO BE FULLY DESIGNED DURING FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING BASED ON SITE SOILS CHARACTERISTICS, SPECIFIC SITE CONSTRAINTS AND RETAINED HEIGHTS. 1 PRELIMINARY RETAINING WALL DETAIL N.T.S. 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24
Uk
WA
WA

WA SURVEYOR AVENUE

ENTERPRISE STREET

NASA STREET
A.P.N. 320-233-03
OWNER: BREA
INDUSTRIAL III LLC A.P.N. 320-233-21 OWNER: BIRCHLUX ASSOCIATES LP

VALENCIA AVE
6 6 29 11 11
2 2
7 16
8 16
9 9
9 9 17 10 17 12 23 19 18 18
4 4
4 12 17 17 17 24
8 9 20 12 19 17 17 12
2 11 17 29 28 29 29 28
9 9 13 13
(E) 30"GAS
(E) 48"SD
(E) 10"WW
(E) MWD 96"W
(E) 8"SS
P SDMH
P SDMH
P (48") SD AT PL AT CB 10" FW BFP & FDC
P (18") SD 10"FW BFP & FDC
P
P
P (48") SD
(10") WW (10") SS
P
P (48") SD
P
P (30") GAS
P
P (8") SS
P (24") SDP (8") SS
P (24") SD
P (8") SS
P (24") SD
P SSMH
P SSMH
P SDMH
P SSMH
P (96") MWD WM
P (96") MWD WM
P (96") MWD WM
P
Y
(E) 54" SD
(E) 21" SD
(E) 18" SD
(E) 18" SD
(E) 21" SD
(E) 27" SD
(E) 24" SD
(E) 48"SD LLR LLR LLR

R LLR LLR LLR LLRLLR
R LLR

R LLR LLR LLR LLR
R
(E) 24"SD 6" MWD OC-29 SERVICE CONNECTION MH

P MWD MH

P MWD ORNAMENTAL AIR VENT & METER HOUSING
P 26 26 26 26 26 26 (30") GAS
A
B
B
C
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
B
B
A
B
C
B
B
D
D
E
D
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
G
F
F
F
G
G
D
I
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
G
F
F
F
F
G
G
H
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
F
G
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
E
K
K
L
K
M
M
N
N
J
J
G
D
Q
O
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 6/21/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 6/25/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60'
W:\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.0_Utility Plan.dwg 6/21/2024 9:09 AM NRAMOS 1:1 UTILITY DEMOLITION PLAN 15 C5.0 UTILITY DEMOLITION NOTES CUT AND PLUG (E) FIRE WATER FOR FUTURE TAP CONNECTION REMOVE UNDERGROUND FIRE WATER REMOVE FIRE HYDRANT REMOVE SANITARY SEWER REMOVE SEWER MANHOLE REMOVE CATCH BASIN REMOVE UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN REMOVE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE MODIFY (E) CATCH BASIN TO CLOSED TOP CUT & PLUG STORM DRAIN PIPE AS NOTED REMOVE DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE REMOVE NATURAL GAS LINE REMOVE TELECOMMUNICATION LINE REMOVE ELECTRICAL LINE APPROX. LOCATION OF 4,000 GAL STAND-BY TRANSFORMER OIL TANK ABANDONED IN PLACE (NEVER USED PREVIOUSLY). REMOVAL PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. PROTECT IN PLACE UTILITY AS NOTED APPROX. LOCATION OF 18" THICK ANCHOR SLAB ABANDONED IN PLACE FOR PREVIOUSLY REMOVED TANKS. APPROX. DEPTH 15' BELOW GRADE.

ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
LM
NO
PQ AGENCY CONTACT LIST OWNER/DEVELOPER AMAZON.COM SERVICES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 310.456.4354 CONTACT: FRITZ GUTENBERG CIVIL ENGINEER WARE MALCOMB 10 EDELMAN IRVINE, CA 92618 949.660.9128 CONTACT: LUKE CORSBIE CITY OF BREA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE BREA, CA 92821 714.990.7146 WATER THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 700 N. ALAMEDA STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 213.217.6000 SEWER, STORM & WATER CITY OF BREA 1 CIVIL CENTER CIRCLE BREA, CA 92821 714.990.7691 ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1851 W. VALENCIA DRIVE FULLERTON, CA 92833 949.697.1424 GAS SOCALGAS CO. 1919 S. STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 213.231.7702 TELEPHONE AT&T 1452 EDINGER AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR TUSTIN, CA 92780 714.815.9170 CABLE/INTERNET SPECTRUM 3430 E. MIRALOMA AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA 92806 714.414.1454 SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. UTILITY LEGENDPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER LOT LINE PROPOSED SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED FIRE WATER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED CABLE LLR LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED R EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED EXISTING WASTEWATER FIRE HYDRANT (FH) LIMIT OF WORK WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. EXISTING FENCE 07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 7/26/24 7/26/24
PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=421.8-423.0 (SLOPED 0.5%) SURVEYOR AVENUE ENTERPRICE STREET A.P.N. 320-233-03 OWNER: BREA INDUSTRIAL III LLC

60.00' R/W
AT-GRADE DOORS @ 421.8
AT-GRADE DOORS @ 423.0
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
H2O H2O
H2O H2O
SD
SS
10"SD, L=110.9',
S=0.045
18"SD, L=114.8',
S=0.052
15"SD, L=95',
S=0.075
18"SD, L=158.0',
S=0.020
15"SD, L=34.6', S=0.012
21"SD, L=84.8', S=0.0078
6"SD, L=6.4', S=0.250
24"SD, L=209.8', S=0.0078
6"SD, L=6.4', S=0.375
6"SD, L=39.7',
S=0.015
(S=0.014)
30"SD, L=701.5',
15"SD, L=123.4', S=0.005
15"SD, L=109.3',
S=0.017
12"SD, L=3.4', S=0.294
18"SD, L=204.6', S=0.020
48"SD, L=569.8', (S=0.018)
48"SD, L=569.8', (S=0.018)
(18"SD), L=24.5',
27"SD, L=24.3',
S=0.01
27"SD, L=67.4',
27"SD, L=48.7', S=0.015 S=0.010
8"SD, L=24.3',
S=0.01
8"SD, L=21.6', S=0.014
6"SS, L=194.9', S=0.010
6"SS, L=181.5', S=0.010
6"SS, L=252.0', S=0.057
18"SD, L=204.6', S=0.020
12"SD, L=47.3',
S=0.036
(E) 8"SS, L=311.2',(S=0.017)
(E) 21"SD,
L=50.0', S=0.130
(E) 54"SD
24"SD, L=11.3',
S=0.0078

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
8" FW
419.2FS
416.7INV
4"X5.5'
418.9TG
416.5INV
4'X6' +1.2'
420.2TG
417.1INV
4'X6'
420.2TG
417.7INV
4'X6' 6" FW
6 29 11 11
2 2
3 7 16 16
9 3
8 9
9 9
4 12
4 24 26 26 26 26
412.7INV
412.7INV
411.3TC
(410.8)TG
408.2INV
8" FW
413.8INV
6"SS
6" FW
8" FW
6" FW
P
417.0TG
414.5INV
4'X6'
(415.5)TC(415.0)TG 411.7INV
417.9TC
417.4FL
414.4INV
4"X5.5' 422.5TC 422.0FS 419.5INV 4"X5.5'
415.8TC
415.3FL
412.8INV
4"X5.5'
416.6FL
413.6INV
4"X5.5'
416.0RIM
414.0' HGL
409.4INV
(417.1)FG
(407.8)INV

JOIN (E) SD
414.5TOP
411.1INV
409.5BOT
414.5TOP
409.5INV
417.3FS
414.5TOP
411.1INV
409.5BOT 416.7INV 18"SD
411.1INV
417.6TG
415.1INV
4'X6'
417.4TC
416.9FL
413.9INV
4"X5.5'
416.0RIM
415.3FS-LP
409.1INV-IN
408.6INV-OUT 408.3INV
413.5INV
412.8INV
411.1INV
414.5TOP
409.5BOT
(E) SDCB(412.2)RIM(407.75)INV(406.25)INV
6 (E) SDMH (410.8)RIM (399.75)INV-E'LY (399.46)INV-E'LY (E) SSMH
(410.9)RIM
(E) SSMH(412.4)RIM(398.33)INV-E'LY(398.17) INV-S'LY
(N) SSMH(397.7)INV
(E) 10"FW & BFP TO REMAIN
(E) 54"SS LINE CONTINUES WESTERLY TO LOFTUS DIVERSION CHANNEL 416.8INV 18"SD 415.8 INV
6"SS
A
D
E
E
F
I
E
F
F
F
G
E
F
I
B
D
D
E
A
D
C
G
E
LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

R
S
S
S
S
U
U
U
U
Y
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
O
O
O
N
N (E) BUILDING, TYP.

O
415.2INV
415.5INV
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C5.2 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C5.4

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.1_Utility Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:25 PM NRAMOS 1:1 UTILITY PLAN 16 C5.1
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S SEE SHEET C5.3 MATCHLINE 0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. UTILITY LEGENDPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER LOT LINE PROPOSED SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED FIRE WATER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEPHONE STORM DRAIN NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURBSIDE CATCH BASIN CATCH BASIN ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CULVERT DRY WELL MANHOLE CURB CUT ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
L UTILITY NOTES RELOCATE GAS MAIN AS REQUIRED BY SOCAL GAS LIGHT POLE 2" IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. CONNECT TO (E) 10" FIRE WATER SERVICE AND (E) 10" BACKFLOW DEVICE. FIRE HYDRANT POST INDICATOR VALVE ON FIRE SPRINKLER LATERAL 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL ELECTRICAL PRIMARY SERVICE CABLE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE PUBLIC SEWER MANHOLE AT POINT OF CONNECTION EV CHARGER NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY

Z EXISTING GAS EXISTING ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED CABLE LLR LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED R EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. EXISTING WASTEWATER FIRE HYDRANT (FH) LIMIT OF WORK WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. SHEET C5.1 SHEET C5.4 SHEET C5.3 SHEET C5.2 EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE WA
WA A.P.N. 320-233-21 OWNER: BIRCHLUX ASSOCIATES LP

VALENCIA AVE
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
SD
SD
24"SD, L=+330',
(S=0.0150)
15"SD, L=81.0', S=0.006
18"SD, L=60.5', S=0.007
10"SD,
L=132.5', S=0.034
15"SD,
L=122.4', S=0.034
12"SD, L=60.5', S=0.005
12"SD, L=60.5', S=0.005
18"SD,
L=123.7', S=0.035
18"SD,
L=112.6', S=0.033
18"SD, L=10.5', S=0.267
10"SD, L=122.8',
S=0.027
10"SD,
L=123.4', S=0.027
12"SD,
L=107.6', S=0.028
12"SD, L=10.9', S=0.670
10"SD,
L=123.7', S=0.037
12"SD,
L=112.6', S=0.025
12"SD, L=10.2', S=0.390
8"SD, L=10.4', S=0.317
12"SD, L=108.9', S=0.020
39"SD, L=7.8', S=0.010
12"SD, L=3.8 S=0.010
',
30"SD, L=156.8', S=0.029
30"SD, L=52.9', S=0.026
42"SD, L=141.5',
S=0.005
18"SD, L=204.6 S=0.020
(E) 24"SD, L=203.9
(S=0.030)
',
(E) 24"SD, L=352.0',
(S=0.007)
8"SD, L=20.5', S=0.09
434.7TG
432.2INV
4'X6'
422.0 TG
419.5INV
4'X6'
419.2FS
416.7INV
4"X5.5'
422.2TG
419.2INV
4'X6'
426.3TG
423.5INV
4'X6'
422.9TC
422.4TG
420.0INV
4"X5.5'
428.7TG
426.3INV
4'X6'
432.5TC
432.0TG
429.6INV
4"X5.5'
426.6TG
424.1INV
4'X6'
430.3TG
427.7INV
4'X6'
431.1TG
428.6INV
4'X6'
417.4TG
414.9INV
4'X6'
417.6TG
415.1INV
4'X6' +1.4'
418.2TG
416.0INV
4"X5.5'
422.0TG
419.5INV
4'X6'
430.6TG
428.1INV
4'X6'
426.3TG
423.8INV
4'X6'
423.5RIM
407.5INV
SDMH
425.5TG
423.0INV
4'X6'
420.0RIM
416.7HGL
412.6INV
420.0RIM
412.5INV-IN
412.0INV-OUT
420.1INV-12"SD
408.9INV-30"SD
420.2TG
417.7INV
4'X6'
9 9 10 17 13 23 19 18 18
4 4 19 17
418.1TG
415.5INV
4"X5.5'
412.7INV
412.7INV
412.7INV
412.7INV
412.7INV
415.5INV 6" FW
412.7INV
(E) SDMH
(436.3)RIM
(429.34)INV-S'LY
(E) SDMH
(429.86)RIM
(423.31)INV-S'LY
(E) SDMH
(427.70)RIM
(420.81)INV-N'LY
(420.75)INV-S'LY
B
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
F
F
C
F
D
F
E
LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

S
Z
O
Z

Z (N) ACCESS EASEMENT (N) ACCESS EASEMENT
415.5INV
412.7INV
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C5.1 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C5.3

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.1_Utility Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:26 PM NRAMOS 1:1 UTILIY PLAN 17 C5.2
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. UTILITY LEGENDPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER LOT LINE PROPOSED SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED FIRE WATER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED CABLE LLR LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED R EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED EXISTING WASTEWATER FIRE HYDRANT (FH) LIMIT OF WORK WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. SHEET C5.1 SHEET C5.4 SHEET C5.3 SHEET C5.2 EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE STORM DRAIN NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURBSIDE CATCH BASIN CATCH BASIN ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CULVERT DRY WELL MANHOLE CURB CUT ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
L UTILITY NOTES RELOCATE GAS MAIN AS REQUIRED BY SOCAL GAS LIGHT POLE 2" IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. CONNECT TO (E) 10" FIRE WATER SERVICE AND (E) 10" BACKFLOW DEVICE. FIRE HYDRANT POST INDICATOR VALVE ON FIRE SPRINKLER LATERAL 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL ELECTRICAL PRIMARY SERVICE CABLE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE PUBLIC SEWER MANHOLE AT POINT OF CONNECTION EV CHARGER NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z
WA
WA
WA

EV EV EV EV EV

VALENCIA AVE
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED

BUILDING
FFE=421.8-423.0
(SLOPED 0.5%)
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

BLDG OVERHANG,

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP

BLDG OVERHANG, TYP
H2O
H2O
(E) 48"SD, L=223.2', (S=0.005)
(E) 24"SD, L=50.3', (S=0.005)
(E) 48"SD, L=457.1', (S=0.007)
(E) 24"SD, 17 17 29
8 9
2 20 19 17 18 24
10 17
8" FW
(E) 10"FW AND BFP TO REMAIN
(E) PUBLIC FH TO REMAIN
2" DW
426.3 RIM

JOIN (E) SDMH
(406.8)INV
(E) SDMH
(415.38)RIM
(405.28)INV-N'LY
(405.26)INV-S'LY
(E) SDMH
(413.12)RIM
(403.89)INV-N'LY
(403.80)INV-S'LY
I
LIMIT OF WORK, TYP.

Q
R
O
W
V
X
V 18 (N) ACCESS EASEMENT (N) ACCESS EASEMENT
N
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C5.4 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C5.2
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.1_Utility Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:26 PM NRAMOS 1:1 UTILIY PLAN 18 C5.3
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' SEE SHEET C5.1 MATCHLINE KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S 0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. UTILITY LEGENDPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER LOT LINE PROPOSED SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED FIRE WATER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED CABLE LLR LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED R EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED EXISTING WASTEWATER FIRE HYDRANT (FH) LIMIT OF WORK WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. SHEET C5.1 SHEET C5.4 SHEET C5.3 SHEET C5.2 EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE STORM DRAIN NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURBSIDE CATCH BASIN CATCH BASIN ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CULVERT DRY WELL MANHOLE CURB CUT ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
L UTILITY NOTES RELOCATE GAS MAIN AS REQUIRED BY SOCAL GAS LIGHT POLE 2" IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. CONNECT TO (E) 10" FIRE WATER SERVICE AND (E) 10" BACKFLOW DEVICE. FIRE HYDRANT POST INDICATOR VALVE ON FIRE SPRINKLER LATERAL 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL ELECTRICAL PRIMARY SERVICE CABLE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE PUBLIC SEWER MANHOLE AT POINT OF CONNECTION EV CHARGER NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

CARPOOL ONLY

EV EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV CAPABLE

EV CAPABLE
EV

NASA STREET

VALENCIA AVE SURVEYOR AVENUE (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (2.8%)
18' LANDSCAPE SETBACK
14' LANDSCAPE SETBACK
(E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED 30' O.C. TYP (E) LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED MIN

56.5'
H2O H2O
SD
6"SD, L=1.0', S=0.20
15"SD, L=163.5', S=0.009
21"SD, L=76.000', S=0.007
18"SD, L=72.000', S=0.008
15"SD, L=172.2',
S=0.035
15"SD, L=37.5',
S=0.080
10"SD, L=38.4', S=0.042
6"SD, L=6.9', S=0.217
12"SD, L=73.0', S=0.020
6"SD, L=7.4', S=0.176
10"SD, L=37.5', S=0.051
15"SD, L=79.0', S=0.020
8"SD, L=222.9', S=0.020
12"SD,
L=181.8', S=0.030
10"SD, L=172.2',
S=0.043
10"SD, L=17.8',
S=0.157
18"SD, L=49.4', S=0.091
48"SD, L=569.8', (S=0.018)
(E) 48"SD, L=223.2', (S=0.005)
(E) 8"SS, L=(S=0.017)
(E) 8"SS, L=260.3',(S=0.017)
(E) 18"SD, L=

13.4', (S=0.340)
(E) 18"SD, L=50.0', (S=0.018)
(E) 24"SD, L=51.8',
(S=0.011)
L=
(E) 21"SD, 336.7', S=0.265
(E) 30"SD
L=
(E) 10"SS,
319.3', S=0.020
10"SD, L=17.9',
21"SD, L=
S=0.156

24.4', S=0.012
6"SD, L=54.4',
S=0.020
10"SD, L=172.2', S=0.037
6"SD, L=1.2', S=1.471
6"SD, L=29.9',
S=0.020
10"SD, L=10.1', S=0.300
9 17 17 12
2 11 28 29 28 29 28
9 9 26 29 26 26
409.2TG
406.2INV
4'X6'
411.4TC
410.9FL
407.9INV
4"X5.5'
400.6TG
397.4INV
404.0TG
401.0INV
4'X6'
410.8TG
408.0INV
4'X6'
407.4TG
404.4INV
4'X6' 407.2RIM 395.6INV 406.2RIM 405.5RIM 404.8RIM 403.2RIM 395.9INV POOLING DEPTH=5.6' 396.3INV 403.8RIM 395.8INV 395.6INV
396.0INV
404.4TC
403.9FL
400.9INV
4"X5.5'
402.8TG
399.8INV
4'X6'
401.5TC
401.0TG
398.5INV
4'X6'
400.0'HGL
395.9INV-IN
396.0INV
24"SD
JOIN (E) 18"SD
(395.5)INV
399.4INV
396.0INV 408.00TG 405.0INV
(E) SDCB
(401.9)RIM
(397.3)INV
(396.3)INV
(E) SDCB
(397.8) RIM
(390.95)INV
(E) SDCB
(397.7) RIM
(390.05)INV
(E) SDCB
(397.1) RIM
(389.94)INV-E'LY
(389.91)INV-N'LY
(389.75)INV-W'LY
(E) SSMH
(397.6) RIM
(387.38)INV-E'LY
(387.35)INV-N'LY
(387.33)INV-W'LY
(E) SSMH(401.4)RIM
(392.92)INV-N'LY(392.20) INV-S'LY
(E) SSMH
(401.61) RIM
(393.73)INV
I
F
E
F
F
E
F
A
H
J
J J
F
E
F
D
D
F
O
O
N
402.7TC
402.2FL
399.2INV
4"X5.5'
E
397.9INV
409.4TG
406.4INV
4'X6'
F
408.8TG
405.8INV
4'X6'
F
408.3TG
405.3INV
4'X6'
F
402.3TG
399.3INV
4'X6'
F
408.1TG
405.1INV
4'X6'
F
401.8TG
398.8INV
4'X6'
F
402.8TG
398.8INV
4'X6'
F
D 403.5TC 403.0TG 400.0INV 4"X5.5'399.0INV
P
O
(N) ACCESS

EASEMENT
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEE SHEET C5.3 MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET C5.1
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.1_Utility Plan.dwg 7/26/2024 4:27 PM NRAMOS 1:1 UTILIY PLAN 19 C5.4
T
T
T
T

VALENCIA AVENUE
ROW:92' SURVEYOR AVENUE ROW:60'

NASA STREET
ROW:60' KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SELF-CERTIFICATIONS FROM A STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED OF ALL BMPS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PLAN OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE GRANTED FROM THE CITY. SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES FOR SCHEDULE B ITEMS SEE NOTES ON SHEET C5.5. UTILITY LEGENDPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER LOT LINE PROPOSED SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN & DIAMETER EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED FIRE WATER EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED CABLE LLR LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED R EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED EXISTING WASTEWATER FIRE HYDRANT (FH) LIMIT OF WORK WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. SHEET C5.1 SHEET C5.4 SHEET C5.3 SHEET C5.2 EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED FENCE STORM DRAIN NOTES TRENCH DRAIN FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNDERGROUND DETENTION (CLOSED) CURBSIDE CATCH BASIN CATCH BASIN ASSUMED LOCATION OF ROOF DOWNSPOUT HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SIDEWALK CULVERT DRY WELL MANHOLE CURB CUT ABC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
L UTILITY NOTES RELOCATE GAS MAIN AS REQUIRED BY SOCAL GAS LIGHT POLE 2" IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. 2" METER AND 2" BACKFLOW DEVICE. CONNECT TO (E) 10" FIRE WATER SERVICE AND (E) 10" BACKFLOW DEVICE. FIRE HYDRANT POST INDICATOR VALVE ON FIRE SPRINKLER LATERAL 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL ELECTRICAL PRIMARY SERVICE CABLE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE PUBLIC SEWER MANHOLE AT POINT OF CONNECTION EV CHARGER NO
PQ
R
S
TU
VWXY
Z
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G 7/26/24

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193
T.R. 8600 & 9762
275 VALENCIA AVE, BREA, CA 92823 IRV21-5032 N. RAMOS F. GARCIA 7/26/2420 05-18-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
01-05-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
08-11-2023 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
01-10-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
04-05-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
06-25-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
07-26-2024 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\5032\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-5032_C5.1_Utility Plan.dwg

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
7/26/2024 4:28 PM NRAMOS 1:1
NOTES 20 C5.5 WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO LAY, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, REPAIR, RENEW AND REMOVE ONE WELDED STEEL PIPE LINE RECORDED AUGUST 14, 1948 IN BOOK 1686, PAGE 527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER CHANNEL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2755, PAGE 502 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS QUITCLAIMED PER DOC NO 46581 RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1980 IN BOOK 13893, PAGE 1392). GRANTED TO ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINES RECORDED MAY 21, 1958 IN BOOK 4291, PAGE 400 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO METROPOLITAIN WATER DISTRICT. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED IN BOOK 7868, PAGE 323; IN BOOK 7868, PAGE 346 AND OCTOBER 31, 1978 IN BOOK 12903, PAGE 897 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC LINES RECORDED IN BOOK 13123 PAGE 1101 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS RECORDED IN BOOK 13130, PAGE 1968 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR MAINTENANCE OF PIPE LINE RECORDED IN BOOK 13162, PAGE 1245 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY. EASEMENTS FOR STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS OF SAID TRACT NO. 8600 IN BOOK 453, PAGE 41, OF MAPS AND TRACT NO. 9762 IN BOOK 442, PAGE 16, OF MAPS AND AS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF BREA BY ENDORSEMENT ON SAID MAPS, OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PORTIONS OF SAID LAND: STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS: AN 18.00 FOOT-WIDE STRIP OF LAND OVER THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOTS 16 AND 17 OF SAID TRACT NO. 8600, (AND AS SHOWN ON LOT A OF TRACT NO. 9762). SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS: OVER THE WESTERLY 12.00 FEET OF LOT 15 AND OVER A PORTION OF SAID LOT 16 OF TRACT NO. 8600. SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS: OVER AN IRREGULAR-SHAPED PORTION OF LOT 10 AND THE WEST 28 FEET OF LOT 9 (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. PARTIALY QUITCLAMED AS RECORDED IN DECEMBER 3, 1980 IN BOOK 13859, PAGE 1261 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES AS RECORDED ON TRACT 9762 BOOK 442 PAGES 16 TO 19 OF MAPS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO LAND OWNER AS AN EXCEPTION TO RELINQUISHED VEHICULAR ACCESS ON VALENCIA. A RIGHT OF WAY FOR PIPE LINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE WATER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DEVICES CONTROLLING ELECTROLYSIS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PIPELINE, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THE SAME, OVER THOSE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND SHOWN AS EITHER "PROPOSED 15" EASEMENT FOR WASTE WATER PURPOSES" OR "PROPOSED 10' EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES" AFECTED SAID LOTS 16 AND 17 AND OTHER LAND IN SAID TRACT NO. 8600, UPON THE TERMS, PROVISIONS, CONVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN CONTAINED, RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 1979 IN BOOK 13440 PAGE 166 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. THE OWNERSHIP OF SAID LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO OR FROM THE STREET, HIGHWAY, OR FREEWAY ABUTTING SAID LAND, SUCH RIGHTS HAVING BEEN RELINQUISHED BY SAID TRACT 8600, RECORDING IN BOOK 453, PAGE 41, OF MAPS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. THE OWNERSHIP OF SAID LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO OR FROM THE STREET, HIGHWAY, OR FREEWAY ABUTTING SAID LAND, SUCH RIGHTS HAVING BEEN RELINQUISHED BY SAID TRACT 9762, RECORDING IN BOOK 442, PAGE 16, OF MAPS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. THE LAND DESCRIBED IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BREA REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AS DISCLOSED BY AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER, 6 1981 IN BOOK 14096 PAGE 1811, OFFICIAL RECORDS. (BLANKET IN NATURE). THE LAND DESCRIBED IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BREA REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AS DISCLOSED BY AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER, 6 1981 IN BOOK 14096 PAGE 1864, OFFICIAL RECORDS. (BLANKET IN NATURE). EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS RECORDED IN BOOK 13837 PAGE 71 OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-57089, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR ELECTRIC LINES PURPOSES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, RECORDED AUGUST 20, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-293202, OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PURPOSES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-460106, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. EASEMENT FOR STREETS, HIGHWAYS, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND CABLE TELEVISION PURPOSES OVER, UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS AND THROUGH AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1982-460107, OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA. MATTERS CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "MEMORANDUM OF OPTION LEASE" RECORDED JULY 10, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-394278 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, EXECUTED BY PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION (LANDLORD) AND HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS CARRIER SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (TENANT) (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). AN UNRECORDED LEASE RECORDED JUNE 26, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1997-296702, OFFICIAL RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES PURPOSES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, RECORDED JULY 10, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2000-360446, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED AUGUST 4, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017000321262, OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MARITAL STATUS, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, FAMILIAL STATUS, SOURCE OF INCOME, DISABILITY, VETERAN OR MILITARY STATUS, GENETIC INFORMATION, MEDICAL CONDITION, CITIZENSHIP, PRIMARY LANGUAGE, AND IMMIGRATION STATUS, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS SET FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDING IN BOOK 13161, PAGE 595, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). EASEMENT FOR WASTE WATER AND STORM DRAIN, SEWER, DRIVEWAY AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED ON TRACT 8600 BOOK 453, PAGES 41 TO 45 OF MAPS (PLOTTED HEREON AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BREA). COVENANT AND AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALITY COMPANY AND CITY OF BREA, RECORDED MAY 9, 1980 IN BOOK 13603, PAGE 1107 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 13654, PAGE 1074 OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 14237, PAGE 66 OFFICIAL RECORDS (PLOTTED HEREON). GRANTED TO THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. MATTERS CONTAINED IN THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED "ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF OPTION AGREEMENT" EXECUTED BY CRE BREA VALENCIA OPTION, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECORDED OCTOBER 15, 2021 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2021000634380, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT OUR SEARCH DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY OPEN DEEDS OF TRUST OF RECORD. YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION, PLEASE CONTACT TITLE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY FOR FURTHER REVIEW PRIOR TO CLOSING (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). ANY RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN POSSESSION OF A PORTION OF, OR ALL OF, SAID LAND, WHICH RIGHTS ARE NOT DISCLOSED BY PUBLIC RECORDS (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). ANY EASEMENTS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS AS TO MATTERS AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT SAID EASEMENTS ARE VISIBLE AND APPARENT (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). MATTERS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY AN INSPECTION AND/OR BY A CORRECT ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY OF SAID LAND THAT IS SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY, AND/OR BY INQUIRY OF THE PARTIES IN POSSESSION THEREOF (NOT A SURVEY MATTER). SCHEDULE B ITEMS - EASEMENT NOTES LOT 5 LOT 8 LOT 6 T.R. 9762 M.B. 442/16-19 LOT 11 LOT 10 LOT 9

PARCEL A
PARCEL B LINE TABLE LINE # DIRECTION LENGTH CURVE TABLE CURVE # RADIUS DELTA LENGTH Tw
DUk
S CONTROL POINTS CP# NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION MONUMENT NOTES MON.# DESCRIPTION A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S.LAND TITLE SURVEY 275 SOUTH VALENCIA AVENUE AND 375 SURVEYOR AVENUE, BREA, CA 92823 THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DRAWN BY:
architecture
planning
interiors
graphics
civil engineering
10 edelman
irvine. california 92618
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"x42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Sheet of FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB CIVIL ENGINEERING Fax: 951-280-9746 Phone: 951-280-9960
www.calvada.com
411 Jenks Cir., Suite 205, Corona, CA 92880
Toll Free: 800-CALVADA
JOB NO. 21968 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BREA, CA 92823

ORANGE COUNTY

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
275 VALENCIA AVENUE

NO SCALE VICINITY MAP
2 2 SITE INFORMATION ITEMS CORRESPONDING TO TABLE A ITEMS SURVEYOR'S NOTES SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 10 RGCE 21968 PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION: Site REMARKS DATE NO. NO. REMARKS DATE
SUBMITTAL 01/17/22 0
UPDATED TITLE REPORT 12/01/2022 1
COMMENTS 12/22/2022 2
COMMENTS 07/13/2023 3
COMMENTS 07/18/2023 4
COMMENTS 11/02/2023 5
PROJECT SCHEDULE B ITEMS BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCHMARK POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENT NOTES GRAPHIC SCALE FEET LEGEND ZONING RESTRICTIONS FLOOD NOTE:

COMMENTS 12/27/2023 6
RO EY
RV
LANDSU

ED SNEICL
tn Po
ndo
D.Du
a rmA
STATEOFCALIFORNIAL.S. 7780 Date Signed: 12/27/2023
5 YEAR - VALENCIA VIEW PAGE
30 DJT4 - AMZL BREA BTS 04.22.2025
BREA, CA - IRV21-5032-00
This conceptual design is based upon a preliminary review of entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploring how the project might be developed. Signage shown is for illustrative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect municipal code compliance. All colors shown are for representative purposes only. Refer to material samples for actual color verification.

PREPARED BY
MAY 2025

CITY OF BREA
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Circle
Brea, California 92821

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
DJT4 PARCEL DELIVERY

FACILITY PROJECT
SCH NO. 2023070241

CITY/BREA
sa
st
o

5.5 a
1 w /
r CaPe d. sat
neil”
y-x*
•J
/ 4 / A

INTERNATIONAL
wi
Michael Baker
..
gs75 -sit P
•4 fs—r Sgrel"
we
—T -" ■
femeg ‘ -e
ayetr
g

ATTACHMENT O
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Project) has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which require all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.

This MMRP provides a framework to document implementation of the required mitigation measures, identifies monitoring/reporting responsibility for each mitigation measure, and provides a record of the monitoring/reporting to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project EIR that are required to minimize impacts associated with the Project. Project design features proposed by the Applicant are also included in this MMRP to ensure implementation.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located at 275 Valencia Avenue on Assessor Parcel Numbers 320-233-17, 320- 301-11, and 320-301-12 (Project Site) in the City of Brea. The Project Site is bounded by Valencia Avenue to the east, Nasa Street to the south, Surveyor Avenue to the west, and adjacent industrial and office uses to the north. Primary regional access to the Project Site is provided via Imperial Highway/State Route 90 approximately 0.2 miles to the south of the Project Site and Carbon Canyon Road/State Route 142 approximately 0.4 miles to the north of the Project Site. Local access to the Project Site is provided via Valencia Avenue, Surveyor Avenue, E. Birch Street, Nasa Street, and Enterprise Street.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would demolish the existing 637,503-square-foot office building and surface parking lot to construct a 181,500-square-foot parcel delivery facility, consisting of 163,350 square feet of warehouse and storage space and 18,150 square feet of ancillary office space, on an approximate

31.6-acre site. The proposed facility would be a single-story building with a maximum height of 50 feet 4 inches (including architectural projections) and a floor area ratio of approximately 0.14:1.

The Project would provide 1,065 vehicle parking spaces (304 automobile spaces, 757 delivery van spaces, and four [4] trailer spaces), 180 ancillary van loading spaces (90 loading spaces and 90 staging spaces), and 13 Utility Tractor Rig loading spaces to serve facility operations. The

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1-2
proposed facility would be generally located in the center of the Project Site and flanked by loading areas and surrounded by vehicle parking. The Project building would be located entirely within the Light Industrial (M-1) zone, and surface parking and drive aisles would be located within the M-1 and Mixed-Use II (MU-II) zoned portion of the Project Site.

Project operations would occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to support delivery of packages to customer locations. The Applicant anticipates up to 31 line haul trucks delivering packages to the Project Site each day during normal operations. Of the 31 anticipated line haul trucks, only up to 22 would operate between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during normal daily operations. In order to fulfill the employee need for the proposed facility, approximately 800 workers would be hired at the proposed facility; however, the total daily workers onsite would not exceed 673 workers.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1.4.1 No Impacts or Less Than Significant Impacts
The analyses provided in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Chapter 7.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the Draft EIR for Project concluded that the Project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts to the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Threshold 5.4(a) and Thresholds 5.4(d) through 5.4(g) • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1-3

1.4.2 Less Than Significant Impacts With Mitigation Incorporated The analyses provided in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR for the Project concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts to the following environmental issue areas, which would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation incorporated:
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Thresholds 5.4(b) and 5.4(c) • Tribal Cultural Resources

1.4.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The analyses provided in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR for the Project concluded that the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1-4
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-1

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The mitigation measures identified in the table below were incorporated into the approval for this Project in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. A signature and compliance date for each mitigation measure indicates that the measure has been implemented and fulfills the City of Brea’s monitoring requirements with respect to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures are numbered as presented in the EIR for the Project.

Project design features proposed by the Applicant are also included in the table below.

Any modifications to the terms and/or timing of the mitigation measures in this MMRP shall provide a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than the approved mitigation measure.

The City of Brea Community Development Department – Planning Division, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed modifications and, if necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required to make a determination of adequacy shall be borne by the Applicant. No changes to the MMRP shall be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as determined by the City, the lead agency for the Project.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-2
This page intentionally left blank.

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-3
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-HAZ1Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall develop a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and submit the SMP to the City’s Fire
Department, Building & Safety Division, and Public Works Department for review and approval. The SMP would
include the following elements:
 Project Site Description: Description of general onsite conditions, soil types, and identification of prior on-site testing results, constituents of concern, and
possible residual contaminants and suspected
materials.
 Health and Safety Measures: No soil disturbance or
excavation activities shall be performed by any
contractor without a site-specific Health and Safety
Plan (HASP) that complies with applicable
occupational health and safety standards. The
HASP should specify appropriate levels of personal
protective equipment (PPE), as well as monitoring
criteria for increasing the level of PPE. The General
Contractor and each subcontractor shall require its
employees who may directly contact suspect soil to
perform all activities in accordance with the HASP.
 Soil Management Procedures: Any soil that is
disturbed, excavated, or trenched due to on-site
construction activities shall be handled in accordance
with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Procedures to be included in the SMP should include
waste segregation, visual soil screening; stormwater
pollution controls; criteria for on-site reuse of soils; soil characterization and profiling requirements prior to
offsite transportation of excavated soil; measures to
prevent soil track-out; and soil import criteria (if
needed). An environmental monitor, an experienced
professional trained in the practice of the evaluation
Prior to any
ground
disturbance
activities
Applicant City of Brea
Fire
Department,
Community
Development
– Building &
Safety
Division, and
Public Works
Department

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-4
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
and screening of soil for potential impacts working
under the direction of a licensed Geologist or
Engineer, shall be identified by the property owner
prior to the beginning of work.
 Identification and Management of Unanticipated
Conditions: The potential exists for encountering of
unanticipated contamination or features. The SMP
should include descriptions of possible indications of
contamination (i.e., suspect soil) that may be
observed and the appropriate response measures.

Potential conditions to be addressed should include,
at a minimum: soil staining; strong or unusual odors;
oily or shiny soil; unknown or unidentified liquids;
buried structures such as tanks, pipelines, sumps or
vaults; and existing or former wells including water
wells, monitoring wells, or oil wells. If the General
Contractor or subcontractor(s) encounter any
suspect soil, the General Contractor and
subcontractor(s) shall immediately stop work and
take measures to not further disturb the soils and
inform the property owner’s representative and the
environmental monitor. Procedures should be
included in the SMP to guide the environmental
monitor’s sampling and analysis for characterization
of suspect soil.
 Dust Management: Procedures to minimize
generation of fugitive dust during earthwork. Water or
other effective means shall be used to control dust
where drilling, excavating, stockpiling, or other dust
producing operations occur in accordance with
applicable local and state regulations.
 UST Removal Procedures: One existing abandoned
UST is present on-site and is planned for removal.

Additional unanticipated USTs may also be
encountered and require removal. All UST removals
should be performed in accordance with the Orange

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-5
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
County Health Care Agency (OCHCA)
Environmental Health Division–Guidelines for the
Removal of Underground Storage Tanks. The SMP
should include a description of the applicable
OCHCA permitting and notification requirements,
soil/tank handling procedures, inspection and
reporting requirements.
 Documentation: Identify requirements for
documentation and tracking of soil characterization,
waste profiling, offsite transportation, disposal, and soil import, and soil import.

MM-HAZ2Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Brea Fire Department for review and approval plans demonstrating that the
required soil-gas mitigation system has been implemented in the Project design. In accordance with the Full Mitigation system requirement of the City of Brea Combustible SoilGas Guideline, the Project shall incorporate the following measures approved by the City of Brea during plan review:
• Below-grade passive venting equally spaced under
all foundation slabs with multiple vent risers.
• Vapor impermeable membrane under all
foundations.
• Utility dams at the edge of each foundation and
throughout Project area.
• All penetrations/voids in slabs sealed with an
expanding 50-yr. foam.
• Wye-seals in all dry utilities.

Prior to the
issuance of the
first building
permit
Applicant City of Brea
Fire
Department

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-6
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Public Services – Police Protection
PDF-PP-1 During construction, the Project will implement temporary security features, including security cameras, fencing, lighting, and locked entry to secure the Project Site during construction. During operation, the Project will include various security measures to ensure the safety and security of employees and the property, including exterior/interior cameras, motion sensors, a building intrusion alarm, and an access control system that would require employees to
utilize a badge at building entrances.

During
construction
activities
Applicant,
Construction
Contractor
City of Brea
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
and/or
Building and
Safety
Division
Transportation
PDF-TR-1 The Project incorporates Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which reduces vehicle trips and
vehicle miles traveled to and from the Project Site:
• Guaranteed Ride Home programs – Ride-share and
taxi rides for employees who carpool but need to
leave work unexpectedly.
• Carpool program promotions – Typically Waze
Carpool unless there is a local alternative.
• Carpool parking – Designated preferred parking
spaces for carpool vehicles.
• Bike racks / employee bike lockers.
• Showers.
• A designated employee transportation coordinator.

Prior to the
issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy
Applicant City of Brea
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
PDF-TR-2 The Project includes the construction of new alternative pedestrian and bicycle connections between Surveyor
Avenue and Valencia Avenue, which would extend The
Tracks at Brea network. A separated bikeway and
pedestrian walkway will be constructed from the terminus of The Tracks at Brea along the Nasa Street Project frontage to the intersection of Valencia Avenue.

Prior to the
issuance of
final a
Certificate of
Occupancy
Applicant City of Brea
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
and/or Public
Works
Department

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-7
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR1Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the Project Site, the Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”), and in concurrence with the City of Brea as the CEQA lead agency. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Brea Community
Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the
construction phases that involve ground-disturbing
activities. Ground-disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or augering, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching, at the Project Site. The Tribal monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and Tribal monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural
Resources, construction activities shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by Project activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor.

If the resources are Native American in origin, the
Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are Prior to
commencement
of any grounddisturbing
activity
Applicant and
Qualified
Native
American
Monitor
City of Brea
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
and/or
Building and
Safety
Division

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
May 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2-8
Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease within 100 feet of
discovery, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section (PRC) 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California PRC Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f)). If a non-Native American resource is
determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute as a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan
established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical
resources and PRC Section 21074(b) for unique
archaeological resources.

MM-TCR2 Discovery of Cultural Resources (not Native American in origin): Prior to commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project Site, the Applicant shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service [NPS] 1983). If cultural resources that are not Native American in origin are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. If the discovery proves to be significant as determined by the site archaeologist, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted and will be reported to the City.

Prior to
commencement
of any grounddisturbing
activity
Applicant and
Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
City of Brea
Community
Development
Department –
Planning
Division
and/or
Building and
Safety
Division
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
1 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

REGARDING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023070241

EXHIBIT A
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. The potential environmental eƯects of the proposed DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (Project) have been analyzed in a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2023070241) dated November 2024. A Final EIR has also been prepared that incorporates the Draft EIR and contains comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to the public comments, revisions to the Draft EIR including any clarifications based on the comments and the responses to the comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. This document provides the findings required by CEQA for approval of the Project.

A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
CEQA (PRC Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) require the environmental impacts of a project to be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental eƯects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant eƯects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental eƯect as identified in the final EIR.

ATTACHMENT P
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
2 (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental eƯects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental eƯects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
3 (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

B. CERTIFICATION
Having received, reviewed, and considered the EIR for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project (SCH No. 2023070241), as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Brea Planning Commission adopts the findings described herein in its capacity as the legislative body for the City of Brea (City), which is the CEQA lead agency.

The findings set forth the environmental and other bases for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the Project.

In addition, the Planning Commission hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with PRC Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091, and hereby certifies that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis.

C. PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The Final EIR addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental eƯects of construction and operation activities associated with the Project. The Final EIR provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make a final decision on the requested discretionary actions for all phases of this Project. The Final EIR was also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other responsible agencies. Discretionary actions to be considered by the City may include, but are not limited to, the following:

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
4  Certify that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City; find that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project; adopt the MMRP, finding that the MMRP is adequately designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation; and determine that the significant adverse eƯects of the Project have been reduced to an acceptable level as outlined in this CEQA Findings of Fact.
 Approve the Project and related discretionary actions needed for Project construction and operation.

II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City published a Draft EIR on November 6, 2024. Subsequently, a Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA requirements and published on May 2, 2025 on the City’s website.

The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As authorized in CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(2), the City retained a consultant to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. City staƯ from multiple departments, representing the lead agency, have directed, reviewed, and modified where appropriate all material prepared by the consultant. The Final EIR reflects the City’s independent analysis and judgement. The key milestones associated with the preparation of the EIR are summarized below. As presented below, an extensive public involvement and agency notification eƯort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR and to solicit comments on the results of the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR.

A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH
In conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Brea CEQA Guidelines, the City of Brea conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project, including:
 Completion and mailing of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day public review period from July 13, 2023 to August 11, 2023. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder, and was mailed to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, other interested parties, and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project Site. The notice for the public scoping meeting was published in the Brea StarProgress on July 13, 2023, and the meeting was held on July 24, 2023. The NOP was made available for public review on the City’s website.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
5  Preparation of a Draft EIR, which was made available for a 62-day public review period beginning November 6, 2024, and ending January 6, 2025. The scope of the Draft EIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City of Brea. Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft EIR. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was sent to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, other interested parties, and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project Site, submitted to the State Clearinghouse for posting on CEQAnet and distribution to public agencies, and posted on the City’s website. The NOA was also posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder and published in the Brea Star-Progress on October 30, 2024. Copies of the Draft EIR were also available at Brea City Hall (1 Civic Center Circle, 3rd Floor, Brea, CA 92821), Brea Library (1 Civic Center Circle, 1st Floor, Brea, CA 92821), and the Brea Community Center (695 Madison Way, Brea, CA 92821) for public review.
 Preparation of a Final EIR, which contains public comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR, and appended documents.
 An informational Project introduction at the November 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting.
 Public hearing on the Project, conducted by the Planning Commission.

In summary, the City conducted all required noticing and scoping for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15083 and conducted the public review for the EIR, which exceeded the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087.

B. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PLANNING COMMISSION

PROCEEDINGS
The City prepared a Final EIR, which contains public comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR, and appended documents.

A total of 17 comment letters were received. Five (5) comment letters were from agencies (South Coast Air Quality Management District [Letter Nos. 8 and 10], California Department of Transportation District 12 [Letter No. 11], City of Chino Hills [Letter No. 12], and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [Letter No. 13]), five (5) comment letters were from organizations (Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy [Letter Nos. 9 and DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
6 17], Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility [Letter No. 14], Sierra Club Angeles Chapter [Letter No. 15], and International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Letter No. 16]), and seven (7) comment letters were from residents of the City.

The Final EIR found that prior to mitigation, implementation of the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, implementation of mitigation measures (MMs) would avoid or reduce all of these impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Members of the public can view searchable agendas for scheduled Planning Commission meetings and access agenda-related City information and services directly on the following websites:
 https://www.cityofbrea.gov/522/Planning-Commission
 https://www.cityofbrea.gov/509/ Meeting-Agendas-Minutes The Final EIR document was posted for viewing and download with the previously posted Draft EIR prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR and Project recommendations on the City’s website (https://www.cityofbrea.gov/166/Projects-in-Process).

A date for consideration of the Final EIR and Project recommendations at Planning Commission was set for the Project, and notice of the meeting was provided consistent with the Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.). The Planning Commission will take testimony on the Project and may continue it on its calendar to a subsequent meeting date at its discretion.

C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project.
 The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Project.
 All written comments submitted by the public during the NOP period and during the scoping meeting.
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
7  All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR.  All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project.
 The MMRP.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final EIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR.
 The resolutions adopted by the City of Brea in connection with the Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.
 Matters of common knowledge to the City of Brea, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are at the City of Brea Community Development Department – Planning Division (1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, CA 92821). The City’s Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are, and at all relevant times, have been and will be, available upon request at the oƯices of the Planning Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

E. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located at 275 Valencia Avenue on Assessor Parcel Numbers 320-233-17, 320- 301-11, and 320-301-12 (Project Site) in the City of Brea. The Project Site is bounded by Valencia Avenue to the east, Nasa Street to the south, Surveyor Avenue to the west, and adjacent industrial and oƯice uses to the north. Primary regional access to the Project Site is provided via Imperial Highway/State Route 90 approximately 0.2 miles to the south of the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
8 Project Site and Carbon Canyon Road/State Route 142 approximately 0.4 miles to the north of the Project Site. Local access to the Project Site is provided via Valencia Avenue, Surveyor Avenue, E. Birch Street, Nasa Street, and Enterprise Street.

F. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project are listed below and will aid decision makers in their review of the Project and associated environmental impacts:
 Develop a parcel delivery facility with nearby access to freeways to eƯiciently facilitate the movement of goods.
 Develop a parcel delivery facility that complies with City of Brea development and zoning standards, including providing enclosed onsite parcel sorting, staging, and similar operational activities associated with the use.  Provide a productive use of currently underutilized industrial land to help meet the unmet regional demands for goods delivery services.
 Reduce the distances traveled for goods delivery to the City of Brea.  Expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Brea, including hundreds of direct operational jobs and indirect jobs through the development and establishment of a new parcel delivery use.  Encourage cyclist and pedestrian safety in the City.
 Attract new businesses to the City of Brea and thereby maintain a jobs-housing balance in the area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

G. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would demolish the existing 637,503-square-foot oƯice building and surface parking lot to construct a 181,500-square-foot parcel delivery facility, consisting of 163,350 square feet of warehouse and storage space and 18,150 square feet of ancillary oƯice space, on an approximate 31.6-acre site. The proposed facility would be a single-story building with a maximum height of 50 feet 4 inches (including architectural projections) and a floor area ratio of approximately 0.14:1. The Project would provide 1,065 vehicle parking spaces (304 automobile spaces, 757 delivery van spaces, and four [4] trailer spaces), 180 ancillary van loading spaces (90 loading spaces and 90 staging spaces), and 13 Utility Tractor Rig loading spaces to serve facility operations. The proposed facility would be generally located in the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
9 center of the Project Site and flanked by loading areas and surrounded by vehicle parking.

The Project building would be located entirely within the Light Industrial (M-1) zone, and surface parking and drive aisles would be located within the M-1 and Mixed-Use II (MU-II) zoned portion of the Project Site.

Project operations would occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to support delivery of packages to customer locations. The Applicant anticipates up to 31 line haul trucks delivering packages to the Project Site each day during normal operations. Of the 31 anticipated line haul trucks, only up to 22 would operate between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during normal operations. In order to fulfill the employee need for the proposed facility, approximately 800 workers would be hired at the proposed facility; however, the total daily workers onsite would not exceed 673 workers.

III. FINDINGS AND FACTS REGARDING IMPACTS
A. FORMAT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that a lead agency make a finding for each significant eƯect for the Project. This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the Project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the Project, which were developed in an eƯort to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered potentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.

This section is divided into the following subsections:
 B, ISSUES DEEMED NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, presents topical areas that would result in no impact or less than significant impacts, as detailed in Chapter 7.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the Draft EIR.  C, ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR, presents environmental issues, as identified in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, which would result in no impact or less than significant impacts.
 D, ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR, presents significant impacts of the Project that were identified in the Draft EIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and MMRP, and the rationales for the findings.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
10  E, ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE, presents the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level.  F, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, presents alternatives to the Project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental eƯects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other considerations.  G, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR, presents the City’s findings on the response to comments and revisions to Draft EIR provided in the Final EIR, and the decision on whether a recirculated Draft EIR is necessary or not.

B. ISSUES DEEMED NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15063 that allow a lead agency to skip preparation of an Initial Study and begin work directly on the EIR process, a NOP was issued without an accompanying Initial Study. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, as described in Chapter 7.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the Draft EIR, the City concluded that Project impacts related to the following topical environmental issues would result in no impact or would be less than significant: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services (Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities), Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Since the following environmental issue areas were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, no findings for these issues are required.

1. Aesthetics
The Project would not have a substantial adverse eƯect on a scenic vista and no impacts would occur. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and no impacts would occur. The Project is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely aƯect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIR) DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
11 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts would occur. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and no impacts would occur. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.2 of the Draft EIR)

3. Biological Resources
The Project would not have a substantial adverse eƯect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and no impacts would occur. The Project would not have a substantial adverse eƯect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS, and no impacts would occur. The Project would not have a substantial adverse eƯect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means and no impacts would occur. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and no impacts would occur. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impacts would occur. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.3 of the Draft EIR) DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
12 4. Cultural Resources
The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant. While such impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-2 related to tribal cultural resources would further minimize any potential impacts. The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.4 of the Draft EIR)

5. Geology and Soils
The Project would not cause potential substantial adverse eƯects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or landslides and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or oƯ-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not create substantial or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soils, and impacts would be less significant. No septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would be necessary as part of the Project; therefore, no impacts would occur. The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.5 of the Draft EIR)

6. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or oƯ-site, increased rate or amount of surface runoƯ in a manner which would result in flooding on- or oƯsite; create or contribute runoƯ water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
13 runoƯ; or impede or redirect flood flows. As such, impacts related to drainage at the Project Site would be less than significant. The Project would not result in release of pollutants due to Project inundation, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter

7.0, Section 7.5.6 of the Draft EIR)

7. Land Use and Planning
The Project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental eƯect and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter

7.0, Section 7.5.7 of the Draft EIR)

8. Mineral Resources
The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impacts would occur. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, and no impacts would occur. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.8 of the Draft EIR)

9. Population and Housing
The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As such, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to population and housing. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.9 of the Draft EIR)

10. Public Services (Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities) The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, parks, and library facilities, need for new or physically altered schools, parks, libraries, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts related to these public services and facilities would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.10 of the Draft EIR)
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
14 11. Recreation
The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Further, the physical eƯects associated with the improvements to the Tracks at Brea are evaluated throughout the Draft EIR and no adverse physical eƯects related to the trail improvements have been identified. As such, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to recreation. (See Chapter 7.0, Section 7.5.11 of the Draft EIR)

12. Utilities and Service Systems
The Project would not require or result in the relocation of new or expanded utility facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental eƯects, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would be anticipated to have suƯicient water supplies available to serve the proposed uses during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would be anticipated to result in a determination by Orange County Sanitation District that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section

7.5.12 of the Draft EIR)

13. Wildfire
The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoƯ, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would be less than significant. (See Chapter 7.0, Section

7.5.13 of the Draft EIR and Section 3.0, Clarifications and Revisions of the Final EIR) DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
15 C. ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT

MITIGATION IN THE EIR
Based on the analyses provided in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, the City determined that the Project would have less than significant impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, for the following environmental issues summarized below:
 Air Quality
 Energy
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Noise
 Public Services – Fire Protection
 Public Services – Police Protection
 Transportation
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 only requires findings for impacts determined to be significant, the findings below are provided for the purpose of better understanding the full environmental scope of the Project.

1. Air Quality
Threshold 5.1(a): Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in emissions that would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional and localized thresholds during both construction and operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would not have the potential to cause or aƯect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. Since the Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria air pollutants, the Project would result in less-than-significant regional emission impacts and would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the growth DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
16 projections in SCAQMD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), comply with SCAQMD rules, and be consistent with the land use planning strategies in the 2022 AQMP. Given the Project’s compliance with regulatory thresholds and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasts, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to the implementation of the 2022 AQMP. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.1(b): Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, emissions generated during Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD‘s regional thresholds of significance. In addition, the Project’s emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants during operation. Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions generated during Project construction and operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
17 Threshold 5.1(c): Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the Project-generated emissions during construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds. In addition, the Project’s cancer risk would be below the 10 in one million threshold and the Project’s non-cancer risk would below the chronic health hazard index threshold of 1.0 during Project operation and construction. Moreover, the Project would not generate traƯic volumes at any intersection that could result in a carbon monoxide hot spot. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.1(d): Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely aƯecting a substantial number of people? Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.1, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the Project may generate objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site during construction. However, these emissions are short-term in nature, will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources, and would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. In addition, the Project does not contain any of the land uses identified as typically associated with emissions of objectionable odors.

Therefore, the Project would not result in odor emissions that would adversely aƯect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to emissions adversely aƯecting a substantial number of people. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
18 2. Energy
Threshold 5.2(a): Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, ineƯicient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, Energy of the Draft EIR, Project construction would have a minimal eƯect on the local and regional electricity supplies and no impact on natural gas supplies, and additional capacity would not be required. Project construction would also have a minimal eƯect on the local and regional transportation fuel supplies and would not require additional capacity. Fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would not represent a significant demand on energy resources since energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with federal and state regulations. The Project’s net operational electricity and natural gas consumption would be significantly below the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies. Compliance with the most current and applicable California Energy Code (Title 24) and California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code would also significantly reduce energy usage. In addition, the Project would not substantially increase Orange County’s annual automotive fuel consumption. The Project would shorten the length of delivery trips by absorbing some service areas that are located closer to the Project Site than to the other existing delivery stations that currently serve these service areas, thereby reducing the distance traveled by delivery vans across all delivery stations. The Project would also include electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces with electrical charging stations installed, EV capable stalls, and short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces, in compliance with CALGreen Code requirements, which would reduce petroleum fuel consumption, encourage, and support alternative modes of travel, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive operational fuel consumption. As such, the Project would not cause wasteful, ineƯicient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to wasteful, ineƯicient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
19 Threshold 5.2(b): Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy eƯiciency?
Impact Summary
Energy conservation policies, regulations, and plans relevant to the Project include the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program; the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Reports; Title 24 and CALGreen Code, which are adopted in their entirety in the Brea Green Building Standards Code and the Brea Energy Code; the California Air Resources Board’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure and In-Use OƯ Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation; the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS); and the City of Brea General Plan. As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, Energy of the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy eƯiciency and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy eƯiciency.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 5.3(a): Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in an overall net reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to baseline conditions. In addition, although not directly applicable to the Project because the City, not SCAQMD, is the lead agency for the Project, the Project’s net GHG emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s bright line screening threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) annually for stationary source/industrial land uses. Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions in a manner that may have a significant impact on the environment and impacts would be less than significant. However, the significance of the Project’s potential impacts regarding GHG emissions and climate change is not DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
20 determined by the SCAQMD bright line screening threshold, but by the Project’s consistency with applicable plans, regulations, and policies as discussed in Threshold 5.3(b) below.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to Project-generated GHG emissions. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.3(b): Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Project would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update and 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, as well as City of Brea regulations and policies. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above under Threshold 5.3(a) would not result in a significant impact on the environment.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 5.4(a): Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing such activities.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
21 As a result, construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Long-term operation of the Project would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials related to parcel delivery facility operations, such as parcel arrival and dispatch, truck circulation, and landscape maintenance. However, these types of hazardous materials and the level of hazardous materials usage would be typical of other commercial, light warehousing, and storage uses.

The Project would not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials at volumes or concentrations that require special provisions, permits, or approvals, such as those required for heavy industrial land uses. Furthermore, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of operation-related hazardous materials would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing such activities. Therefore, potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.4(d): Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, based on the results of the environmental database search conducted for the Project Site, the Project is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impacts would occur.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
22 Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.4(e): For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? Impact Summary
As discussed in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working within an airport land us plan area or within two miles of a public airport and there would be no impact.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to an airport land use plan, a public airport, or a public use airport. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.4(f): Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, construction and operation of the Project would not prohibit the use of Carbon Canyon Road or State Route 57 as evacuation routes. The Project would utilize local roadways and exits such as the ingresses or egresses along Surveyor Avenue, Valencia Avenue, and/or Nasa Street in the event of evacuation during Project construction and operation. Additionally, the construction and operation of the Project would not require full lane closures or permanent obstruction of local roadways. Moreover, Project construction and operation would not impede local emergency management authorities from adjusting local evacuation routes, if necessary, during an emergency. The Project would also cooperate with the emergency response protocols established by the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and Brea Fire Department (Brea Fire), as needed, during construction and operation, and would be required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
23 incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations in the California Fire Code and the Brea City Code (BCC) to ensure that Project development does not interfere with the provision of local emergency services. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction and operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

5. Noise
Threshold 5.5(a): Would the project generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.5, Noise of the Draft EIR, the Project’s construction noise is compared to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) construction-related noise level standard of 80 dBA. Onsite noise generated as a result of Project operations is compared to City’s exterior residential noise standards described in the BCC Section 8.20.050. The increase in transportation-related noise is compared against the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) recommendation for evaluating the impact of increased traƯic noise. Project’s onsite construction activities would not exceed the applicable FTA construction noise standard and the Project’s oƯsite construction trips would not result in a doubling of traƯic on the local transportation network that would increase traƯic noise by 3 dBA. The Project’s operational noise would not exceed the City’s 55 dBA exterior noise standard for daytime or the 50 dBA exterior noise standard for nighttime at any sensitive receptor location. In addition, Project-generated traƯic during operation would not result in an increase in traƯic noise along the Project area roadway segments that would exceed the applicable FICON noise standards. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established by the City or the applicable standards of other agencies.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
24 As such, the Project’s construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.5(b): Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.5, Noise of the Draft EIR, the Project’s construction vibration is compared to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) recommended construction vibration standard of 0.3 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) with respect to the prevention of structural damage for older residential buildings. Operational vibration is compared to the City’s standard of 0.003 inches per second PPV provided in BCC Section 20.20.040. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short-term constructionrelated activities. The calculated groundborne vibration levels associated with onsite construction activities would not exceed the Caltrans standard of 0.3 inches per second PPV) standard at the nearest structure of concern. Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. However, during the Project’s normal daily operation, the Project would accommodate up to 31 line haul trucks, which would result in 62 heavy-duty truck trips a day. The vibration levels generated by the line haul trucks would not exceed the City’s standard of 0.003 inches per second PPV at the property line. Therefore, Project impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
25 Threshold 5.5(c): For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Summary
As discussed in Section 5.5, Noise of the Draft EIR, The Project Site is located approximately

7.72 miles northeast of the nearest airport, the Fullerton Municipal Airport, and is not within the planning area of the Fullerton Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Therefore, the Project would not expose employees or visitors to excessive airport noise levels and no impact would occur.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to a private airstrip, an airport land use plan, a public airport, or a public use airport. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

6. Public Services – Fire Protection
Threshold 5.6(a): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.6, Public Services – Fire Protection of the Draft EIR, Project construction activities would be temporary and intermittent and all demolition and construction activities would be subject to compliance with applicable state and local regulations for fire safety to reduce the risk of construction-related fires. In addition, compliance with the requirements of the City’s Public Works Department would ensure that emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained, and construction would not significantly increase Brea Fire response times. Furthermore, construction-related traƯic generated by the Project would not significantly aƯect Brea Fire response to the Project Site DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
26 and vicinity as emergency vehicles have the ability to avoid traƯic through a variety of means, including the use of sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traƯic.

Project implementation would not induce significant unplanned population growth to the area that would require fire protection services since no new residents would be generated.

Although fire protection services would still be required at the Project Site, the Project Site is already served by existing fire protection infrastructure (i.e., hydrants) and an increase in demand for fire protection services at the Project Site is not anticipated due to the reduced scale of uses and occupancy onsite. The Project design would also ensure that Brea Fire has adequate emergency access via fire apparatus access roads. In addition, the Project design would be required to comply with all applicable state and local regulations related to fire protection, including California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq., and the Brea Building Code (BCC Chapter 15.08) and Brea Fire Code (BCC Chapter 16.04), which includes fuel modification requirements. Furthermore, the City is required by California Constitution Article XIII, Section 35 to provide adequate public safety services, including fire protection.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a need for new or expanded Brea Fire facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other Brea Fire performance standards, and impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

7. Public Services – Police Protection
The Project would implement the following project design feature:

PDF-PP-1: During construction, the Project will implement temporary security features, including security cameras, fencing, lighting, and locked entry to secure the Project Site during construction. During operation, the Project will include various security measures to ensure the safety and security of employees and the property, including exterior/interior cameras, motion sensors, a building intrusion alarm, and an access control system that would require employees to utilize a badge at building entrances.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
27 Threshold 5.7(a): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.7, Public Services – Police Protection of the Draft EIR, the daytime population generated at the Project Site during construction (i.e., construction workers) would be temporary in nature and construction of the Project would not generate a permanent onsite population that would substantially increase the service population of Brea Police Department (Brea PD). Nonetheless, construction sites can be sources of nuisances and hazards such as theft and vandalism, which could potentially increase demand for police protection services. The Applicant would implement temporary security features, including security cameras, fencing, lighting, and locked entry to secure the Project Site during construction, which would reduce the potential demand on police protection services at the Project Site during construction. During construction, compliance with the requirements of the City’s Public Works Department would ensure that emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained, and construction would not impede Brea PD from maintaining its response times. In addition, construction activities are temporary in nature and full access to all roadways to and within the Project Site would be restored upon completion of the Project. Furthermore, construction-related traƯic generated by the Project would not significantly aƯect Brea PD response to the Project Site and vicinity as emergency vehicles have the ability to avoid traƯic by using sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traƯic.

Project implementation would not induce significant unplanned population growth to the area since no new residents would be generated. However, unlike existing uses, the Project operations would occur 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, thus potentially aƯecting demand for police services during late night and early morning hours. As such, in accordance with PDF-PP-1, the Project would include various security measures to ensure the safety and security of employees and the property 24-hours a day, which would reduce demand for police protection services at the Project Site. In addition, the Project would be required to pay dispatch impact fees, which would further reduce impacts related to police protection services. Moreover, the City is required by California Constitution Article XIII, Section 35 to provide adequate public safety services, including police protection. Therefore, the Project DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
28 would not result in a need for new or expanded police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other Brea PD performance standards, and impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for police protection services. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

8. Transportation
The Project would implement the following project design features:

PDF-TR-1: The Project incorporates a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to and from the Project Site:
• Guaranteed Ride Home programs – Ride-share and taxi rides for employees who carpool but need to leave work unexpectedly. • Carpool program promotions – Typically Waze Carpool unless there is a local alternative.
• Carpool parking – Designated preferred parking spaces for carpool vehicles.
• Bike racks / employee bike lockers.
• Showers.
• A designated employee transportation coordinator.

PDF-TR-2: The Project includes the construction of new alternative pedestrian and bicycle connections between Surveyor Avenue and Valencia Avenue, which would extend The Tracks at Brea network. A separated bikeway and pedestrian walkway will be constructed from the terminus of The Tracks at Brea along the Nasa Street Project frontage to the intersection of Valencia Avenue.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
29 Threshold 5.8(a): Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Impact Summary
The applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies that address the City’s circulation system include SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 and the City’s General Plan. Based on the detailed analysis provided in Section 5.8, Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Project is generally consistent with, and would not conflict with, the goals and policies of the Connect SoCal 2024 and the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

Threshold 5.8(b): Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact Summary
Based on the analysis provided Section 5.8, Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Project screens out of a full VMT analysis and can be concluded to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. In addition, the VMT generated by the proposed parcel delivery use would be substantially less than the VMT generated by the existing baseline condition (Bank of America). As such, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to conflicts or inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
30 Threshold 5.8(c): Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.8, Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Project Site is located within an existing industrial area and the proposed light industrial use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site. Thus, the Project would not construct incompatible uses in the Project area. Sidewalks are limited along the Project frontage and surrounding area and trail and pedestrian connection between Surveyor Avenue and Valencia Avenue is needed. The Project would improve accessibility and safety by constructing a separated bikeway and pedestrian walkway to extend The Tracks at Brea along the Nasa Street Project frontage to the intersection of Valencia Avenue to connect the existing gap in The Tracks at Brea trail (see Project Design Feature PDF-TR-2).

The Project would also construct a sidewalk along the Valencia Avenue Project frontage.

Project construction would occur within the boundaries of the Project Site and within the rights-of-ways of the adjacent streets. If lane closures are necessary during Project construction, the Project would be required to submit a traƯic control plan and encroachment permit application to the City’s Public Works Department to ensure roadway safety during construction. All proposed modifications related to the driveway closures and the Project’s internal circulation would be required to comply with the applicable City of Brea Public Works Standard Plans and Specifications, which would ensure that the Project would not result in sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other hazardous design features.

Additionally, the Project’s contribution to the queue length increase is considered relatively minor (less than one vehicle) and would not require improvements at the intersection.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
31 Threshold 5.8(d): Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.8, Transportation of the Draft EIR, Project construction may result in temporary sidewalk and lane closures that could aƯect emergency access to the Project Site. However, full road closures would not occur and construction activities are temporary in nature and full access to all roadways to and within the Project Site would be restored upon completion of the Project. In the event of construction-related lane closures, the Project would also be required to submit a traƯic control plan and encroachment permit application to the City’s Public Works Department to ensure roadway safety and access during construction. In addition, Brea Fire and the Brea PD would be notified prior to the day on which work, traƯic detours, and/or street closures are scheduled to be performed on public right-of-way and the Project contractor would be required to maintain all signs, barricades and lights during construction activities. Upon Project completion and operation, access to the Project Site would be provided by six (6) driveways. All driveways would be required to comply with City design standards and the Project’s internal circulation would also be required to comply with the applicable City of Brea Public Works Standard Plans and Specifications to ensure that emergency access to and within the Project Site would be maintained. Furthermore, Project-generated traƯic would not exceed the City’s level of service thresholds at any of the study intersections and no improvements are recommended. Thus, Project traƯic would not create congestion on the roadways that could substantially impede emergency vehicle access to the Project Site and the surrounding vicinity. As such, the Project construction and operation would not result in inadequate emergency access to the Project Site and the Project vicinity. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding
The Project would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts related to inadequate emergency access. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
32 D. ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN

THE EIR
Based on the analyses provided in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, the City determined that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts without mitigation for the environmental issues summarized below. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 5.4(b): Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, demolition activities may reveal asbestos-containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paint (LBP) based on the age of the building. As such, in the case of discovery of ACM or LBP, these materials would be remediated or abated in accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations regarding the disturbance, handling, and disposal of materials containing ACM and LBP. In addition, an abandoned underground storage tank (UST) was identified as a recognized environmental condition (REC) for the Project Site and the sampling and field screening conducted for the Project detected elevated concentrations of benzene, chloroform, and methane within the Project Site. Although the contamination is not indicative of a release from the abandoned UST and no further assessment is warranted, the potential for encountering unanticipated contamination or features exists. Thus, implementation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to provide guidance and procedures for proper soil handling and UST removal during ground-disturbing activities is recommended.

Construction of the Project would involve ground-disturbing activities, including excavation, that could encounter potentially hazardous and contaminated soils. Therefore, construction of the Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be potentially significant without mitigation. Operation of the Project may also result in significant hazards due to potential soil-gas vapor intrusion from the elevated levels of methane detected on the Project Site. Therefore, based on the above, Project operation has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be potentially significant before mitigation.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
33 Project Design Features
No specific project design features are proposed.

Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall develop a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and submit the SMP to the City’s Fire Department, Building & Safety Division, and Public Works Department for review and approval. The SMP would include the following elements:
• Project Site Description: Description of general on-site conditions, soil types, and identification of prior on-site testing results, constituents of concern, and possible residual contaminants and suspected materials. • Health and Safety Measures: No soil disturbance or excavation activities shall be performed by any contractor without a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) that complies with applicable occupational health and safety standards. The HASP should specify appropriate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as monitoring criteria for increasing the level of PPE. The General Contractor and each subcontractor shall require its employees who may directly contact suspect soil to perform all activities in accordance with the HASP.
• Soil Management Procedures: Any soil that is disturbed, excavated, or trenched due to on-site construction activities shall be handled in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Procedures to be included in the SMP should include: waste segregation, visual soil screening; stormwater pollution controls; criteria for on-site reuse of soils; soil characterization and profiling requirements prior to oƯsite transportation of excavated soil; measures to prevent soil track-out; and soil import criteria (if needed). An environmental monitor, an experienced professional trained in the practice of the evaluation and screening of soil for potential impacts working under the direction of a licensed Geologist or Engineer, shall be identified by the property owner prior to the beginning of work.
• Identification and Management of Unanticipated Conditions: The potential exists for encountering of unanticipated contamination or features. The SMP should include descriptions of possible indications of DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
34 contamination (i.e., suspect soil) that may be observed and the appropriate response measures. Potential conditions to be addressed should include, at a minimum: soil staining; strong or unusual odors; oily or shiny soil; unknown or unidentified liquids; buried structures such as tanks, pipelines, sumps or vaults; and existing or former wells including water wells, monitoring wells, or oil wells. If the General Contractor or subcontractor(s) encounter any suspect soil, the General Contractor and subcontractor(s) shall immediately stop work and take measures to not further disturb the soils and inform the property owner’s representative and the environmental monitor. Procedures should be included in the SMP to guide the environmental monitor’s sampling and analysis for characterization of suspect soil.
• Dust Management: Procedures to minimize generation of fugitive dust during earthwork. Water or other eƯective means shall be used to control dust where drilling, excavating, stockpiling, or other dust producing operations occur in accordance with applicable local and state regulations.
• UST Removal Procedures: One existing abandoned UST is present on-site and is planned for removal. Additional unanticipated USTs may also be encountered and require removal. All UST removals should be performed in accordance with the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Environmental Health Division–Guidelines for the Removal of Underground Storage Tanks. The SMP should include a description of the applicable OCHCA permitting and notification requirements, soil/tank handling procedures, inspection and reporting requirements. • Documentation: Identify requirements for documentation and tracking of soil characterization, waste profiling, oƯsite transportation, disposal, and soil import, and soil import.

MM-HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of first building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit to the City of Brea Fire Department for review and approval plans demonstrating that the required soil-gas mitigation system has been implemented in the Project design. In accordance with the Full Mitigation system requirement of the City of Brea Combustible Soil-Gas Guideline, the Project shall incorporate the following measures approved by the City of Brea during plan review:

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
35 • Below-grade passive venting equally spaced under all foundation slabs with multiple vent risers.
• Vapor impermeable membrane under all foundations.
• Utility dams at the edge of each foundation and throughout Project area. • All penetrations/voids in slabs sealed with an expanding 50-yr. foam. • Wye-seals in all dry utilities.

Finding
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental eƯect as identified in the Final EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
While the potential for encountering unanticipated contamination or features exists, the identified mitigation measures avoid the potential significant environmental eƯect.

Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 requires the development and implementation of an SMP with specific protocols for the identification, handling, and disposal of any contaminated soils encountered during Project construction. Thus, the SMP reduced the potential for Project construction to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to soil contamination to a less-than-significant level. Separately, Mitigation Measure MMHAZ-2 requires the Project to implement a soil-gas mitigation system as approved through Brea Fire review . The mitigation system design will apply the City of Brea Combustible SoilGas Guideline to address the potential for soil-gas vapor intrusion within the Project Site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts related to the release of hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
36 Threshold 5.4(c): Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, the Project Site is located approximately 0.2 miles southeast of Olinda Elementary School. The Project would only involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of construction-related hazardous materials and all handling and disposal of hazardous materials would be regulated by local, state, and federal laws enforced by authorized agencies. However, Project construction has the potential to encounter contaminated soils during ground-disturbing activities and may require the handling and disposal of contaminated soils near Olinda Elementary School and impacts would be potentially significant before mitigation.

Long-term operation of the Project would involve the limited transport, storage, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials typically related to parcel delivery facility operations and such materials would be consistent with other potentially hazardous materials currently used in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project would not involve the development of an industrial use that would emit large amounts of chemicals or acutely hazardous materials. All materials used during operation of the Project would be used in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions and handled and disposed of in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, impacts related to the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of Olinda Elementary School during operation of the Project would be less than significant.

Project Design Features
No specific project design features are proposed.

Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 above.

Finding
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental eƯect as identified in the Final EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
37 Rationale for Finding
Project construction has the potential to encounter contaminated soils during grounddisturbing activities and may require the handling and disposal of contaminated soils near Olinda Elementary School. Because of this, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1, which requires the development of an SMP. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 would reduce potential construction impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of Olinda Elementary School to a less-than-significant level.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 5.9(a): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Impact Summary
As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Tribal Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, although the results of the records search did not identify any known cultural resources within the Project Site and no historic archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the Project Site, the Project Site is potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded to the City’s Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification letter with a request for consultation. However, no known tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1), or resources determined by the City in its DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
38 discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1 have been identified within the Project Site as a result of AB 52 consultation. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search was negative.

Nevertheless, based on the results of the consultation, there is potential for grounddisturbing activities during Project construction to uncover tribal cultural resources within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an unknown tribal cultural resource and impacts would be potentially significant before mitigation.

Project Design Features
No specific project design features are proposed.

Mitigation Measures
MM-TCR-1: Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the Project Site, the Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”), and in concurrence with the City of Brea as the CEQA lead agency. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Brea Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The tribal monitor will only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or augering, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, at the Project Site. The Tribal monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified.

The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and Tribal monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by Project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
39 will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease within 100 feet of discovery, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section (PRC) 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California PRC Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f)). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute as a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding suƯicient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Section 21074(b) for unique archaeological resources.

MM-TCR-2: Discovery of Cultural Resources (not Native American in origin): Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the Project Site, the Applicant shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). If cultural resources that are not Native American in origin are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. If the discovery proves to be significant as determined by the site archaeologist, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted and will be reported to the City.

Finding
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental eƯect as identified in the Final EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
40 Rationale for Finding
Since there is the potential for ground-disturbing activities during Project construction to uncover tribal cultural resources within the Project Site, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2 to reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources during construction to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure MM TCR-1 would require a Native American monitor to be retained prior to grounddisturbing activities to ensure that any discovery of tribal cultural resources is treated in a manner that is deemed appropriate by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-2 would require a qualified archaeologist to be retained prior to ground-disturbing in the event that cultural resources that are not Native American in origin are discovered to ensure that any discovery of archaeological resources are assessed and handled appropriately.

E. ISSUES DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
The EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts for the Project.

F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could substantially reduce or avoid the significant impacts of a project while also meeting the project’s basic objectives (PRC Section 21002.1). Accordingly, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to a project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant eƯects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

The alternative analysis included in the EIR, therefore, identified a reasonable range of Project alternatives focused on avoiding or substantially reducing the Project’s significant impacts.

1. Summary of Findings
Based upon the following analysis, the City finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2), that no feasible alternative will substantially lessen any significant eƯect of the Project, reduce the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project to a level that is less than significant, or avoid any significant eƯect the Project would have on the environment.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
41 2. Project Objectives
 Objective 1: Develop a parcel delivery facility with nearby access to freeways to eƯiciently facilitate the movement of goods.
 Objective 2: Develop a parcel delivery facility that complies with City of Brea development and zoning standards, including providing enclosed onsite parcel sorting, staging, and similar operational activities associated with the use.  Objective 3: Provide a productive use of currently underutilized industrial land to help meet the unmet regional demands for goods delivery services.  Objective 4: Reduce the distances traveled for goods delivery to the City of Brea.  Objective 5: Expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Brea, including hundreds of direct operational jobs and indirect jobs through the development and establishment of a new parcel delivery use.  Objective 6: Encourage cyclist and pedestrian safety in the City.  Objective 7: Attract new businesses to the City of Brea and thereby maintain a jobs-housing balance in the area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

3. Alternatives Considered and Rejected
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.

Alternative Locations
Feasible alternative sites for the Project must be designated and zoned for industrial use in the City of Brea, in close proximity to a freeway, and large enough to support the operation of a parcel delivery facility. Based on a review of the City of Brea General Plan and zoning map, approximately 12 percent of the City’s land is designated and zoned for industrial uses.

While many of these other industrial-zoned parcels would have similar access to the freeway as the Project Site, none are unoccupied or large enough to support a parcel delivery facility.

Moreover, the Applicant does not own, control, or have access to any other industrial-zoned parcels within the City that could support a parcel delivery facility. Therefore, the development of the Project at an alternative location would not be feasible and is rejected for further consideration.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
42 Alternative Uses
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), the EIR need only consider alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Development of the Project Site with residential or oƯice-only uses would not attain the basic Project objectives.

Specifically, alternative uses would not meet the objectives related to the development of a parcel delivery facility. Moreover, residential or oƯice uses would not help meet the regional demands for good delivery services or reduce the distances traveled for good delivery.

Although oƯice uses could partially meet the objective to attract new businesses to the City and reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, residential uses would not meet this objective. Thus, alternative uses for the Project Site are rejected from further consideration.

4. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative, assumes that the existing 637,503-squarefoot building would be reoccupied for oƯice uses, consistent with the previously established land use for the project site. This alternative would not require demolition or construction activities as no warehouse would be built. Alternative 1 would have a daily maximum of 2,075 employees onsite.

Impact Summary: Alternative 1 would result in greater impacts related to operational regional and localized air emissions, operational energy consumption, operational GHG emissions, operational demand for fire and police protection services, and VMT when compared to the Project. All other impacts under this alternative would be less than or similar to the Project.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this alternative for the reasons identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale for Finding: Alternative 1 was rejected because it would not meet the underlying purpose of the Project to construct a parcel delivery facility. Although Alternative 1 would attract new businesses to the City (Objective 1), it would not achieve six of the seven Project objectives (Objectives 1 through 6).

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
43 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, would reduce the Project’s building square footage and delivery operations by 15 percent. Total building square footage for the proposed parcel delivery facility would be 154,275 square feet, which would be comprised of 138,848 square feet of merchandise warehouse space and 15,427 square feet of ancillary oƯice space. As a result of this reduction in building square footage, this alternative would involve some outdoor activities, such as product staging prior to loading. This outdoor activity would require additional discretionary approval from the City, given the limitations in the City’s municipal code for such outdoor activity. Alternative 2 would have a daily maximum of 572 employees onsite.

Impact Summary: Alternative 2 would result in similar or less impacts compared to the Project, except for the potentially greater noise impacts resulting from outdoor operational activities such as parcel staging. Due to the reduced size, Alternative 2 would not provide all parcel staging and similar activities in enclosed spaces; thus, Alternative 2 would result in an inconsistency with the City’s development and zoning standards.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this alternative for the reasons identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale for Finding: Although Alternative 2, would achieve six of the seven Project objectives (Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), it would not provide all parcel stating and similar activities in enclosed spaces (Objective 2) due to the reduced size. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not avoid any of the significant impacts of the Project and would result in greater impacts related to noise and land use. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected.

Alternative 3: Adaptive Reuse of the Existing Building Alternative Alternative 3, the Adaptive Reuse of Existing Building Alternative, would repurpose the existing building to accommodate the proposed parcel delivery facility. The ground floor of the existing building, which is approximately 163,000 square feet, would be utilized as merchandise warehouse space and the upper floors comprising approximately 474,503 square feet would be occupied by oƯice uses. Alternative 3 would have a daily maximum of 2,218 employees onsite.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
44 Impact Summary: Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts related to operational regional and localized air emissions, operational energy consumption, operational GHG emissions, operational oƯ-site noise (traƯic) levels, operational demand for fire and police protection services, and VMT. All other impacts would be less than or similar to the Project.

Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this alternative for the reasons identified in the Final EIR.

Rationale for Finding: Implementation of Alternative 3 achieve all of the Project objectives.

However, Alternative 2 would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project related to operational regional and localized air emissions, operational energy consumption, operational GHG emissions, operational oƯ-site noise (traƯic) levels, operational demand for fire and police protection services, and VMT. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected.

G. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
The Final EIR contains response to comments, and revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR. The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The City provided written responses to each comment made by public agencies, organizations, and individuals in Section 2.0 of the Final EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), and revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR are found in Section 3.0 of the Final EIR.

CEQA requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review, but before certification. “Information” includes changes in the proposed project.

Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

New information is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental eƯect of the proposed project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an eƯect. “Significant new information” includes a disclosure showing that:

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
45  A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
 A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;  A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably diƯerent from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or  The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The City evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from individuals, organizations, and agencies who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The written responses contained in the Final EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR and the responses to comments are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the EIR. Therefore, the City has determined that recirculation of the EIR is not required.

Since the Draft EIR was circulated, minor revisions and clarifications were made to the Draft EIR. In certain instances, textual clarifications were requested by the persons who reviewed the Draft EIR in their comment letter. In addition, there were minor changes to the site plan for the Project. These changes resulted in a reduction of the building height and an increase in the number of trees provided, including trees along Valencia Avenue that would provide additional screening. The TraƯic Impact Assessment is also included in the Final EIR for informational purposes. The City has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the Project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
CEQA Findings of Fact May 2025
46 IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse eƯects, those eƯects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires the lead agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (b), such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The lead agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Because the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, as substantiated in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not warranted and does not apply to the proposed Project. o
C
IIL
(E
o
?
-
o
.cI
I
J
o
h
o
o
o
IIt,
o
tr

CITY OF BREA
NorlcE ls HEREBY GlvEN, pursuant to state Law, that a public hearing will be hetd by the city Council, in accordance with State Law and Brea City Code, to consider the following:

DATE AND TIME Tuesday, August 'l9th, 7:00 p.m.

OF HEARING: All interested persons may appear and be heard at that timePLACE OF HEARING:

REQUEST:

Brea Civic & Cultural Center, Council Chambers
1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, CA 92821
Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the following entiflements Environmental lmoact Report (ElR) No. 2023-01 to certify a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmentat tmpact Report (ElR), State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241, which analyzed the
environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project.

LOCATION:

FURTHER INFORMATION MAY BE
990-7674 OR EMAILING planner@c
Victoria Pop cu, City Clerk
entative Parcel Mao (TPl\il No.2022-193 to reconfigure and merge three existing lots into one lot
Plan Review (PR ) No. 2022-09 to allow the demolition of an existing

AREA MAP
oBTA|NED By CALLTNG THE PLANN|NG DtVtStON AT (7't4l
ityofbrea.qov.
. Vestino T
II
-
637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas, and construction of an industrial warehousing development consisting of a '181 ,500-square-foot parcel delivery facility, including surface parking and associated landscape areas.

On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the project during a duly noticed public hearing and approved the project with a 5-0 vote, subject to conditions of approval. ln addition, as part of their lvlay 13, 2025 action, the Planning Commission, in accordance with the CEQA, certified the EIR prepared for the project and adopted the CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reportlng Program. Atl associated CEeA documents, including the ElR, can be accessed through the following link:
citvofbrea.oov/1 66/Pro iects-in-Process
The project approval was appealed by two appellants: David Maxey and Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA).

The project site is 31.6 acres in size, and is located at 275 Valencia Avenue, which is situated west of Valencia Avenue, south of office and industrial uses, noTth of Nasa Street, and west of Surveyor Avenue. The project site has General Plan Land Use designations of Light lndustrial and Mixed Use ll and Zoning designations of Light lndustrial and NIixed-Use ll.

Ware l\ilalcomb representing Amazon.com Services LLC
10 Edelman, lrvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY OWNER: Amazon.com Services LLC
410 Terry Avenue North, Seatfle, Washington, WA 99109

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE PROJECT AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS IN

COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN

CORRESPONDENCE, DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IIJE
m
II
o
F
-r(J
A
N
APPLICANT:
)0
t
r
tit

ATTACHMENT Q
CITYof  BREA
Communication
August 19, 2025
Item No. 4A.

Mercury Senior Apartments Project: Approval of a Density Bonus, Environmental Impact Report Addendum, financial requests, and associated agreements

TO PREPARED BY
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Marie Dao, Senior Management Analyst

DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
Jason Killebrew, Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director Kristin Griffith, City Manager

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Applicant, C&C Development Co., LLC (also referred to as Brea Mercury LP as signatory to the agreements), is proposing Mercury Senior Apartments Project (Proposed Project), which includes the development of an 85-unit, 100 percent affordable senior housing community on a 1.01-acre site, located at the southeast corner of Mercury Lane and Berry Street (Project Site). Table 1 below shows the proposed affordability breakdown, which would contribute to the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Extremely Low, Very Low, and Low-Income households.

TABLE 1 – PROPOSED AFFORDABILITY BREAKDOWN
Income Category Income Range* Number of Units
Extremely Low 30% AMI or less 10
Very Low 31% to 50% AMI 9
Lower Income 51% to 60% AMI 26
61% to 70% AMI 39
Market
(manager’s unit) Above 120% AMI 1
Total 85
*Orange County 2025 Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of four is $136,600 In order to facilitate the Proposed Project, the Applicant is formally requesting $2,331,800 from the City in the form of a 55-year loan; deferral of $659,311 in development impact fees in the form of a 55-year loan; a request for a reduced parking ratio and a reduction in development standards as allowed under State Density Bonus law that was discussed and supported in principle at the April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting Study Session.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve an Affordable Housing Agreement, including Notice of Affordability Restrictions, with Brea Mercury LP (Attachment A) for the Mercury Senior Apartments Project;

2. Approve a Loan Agreement with Brea Mercury LP (Attachment B), which includes a loan of $2,331,800 from the City’s Housing Trust Fund (270) and up to $659,311 in deferred development impact fees for the development of said affordable project;

3. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment C) approving the following:
a. Density Bonus (DB) No. 2025-01, a request to utilize the Density Bonus parking standards and two Density Bonus waivers of development standards to allow for reduction in required minimum common open space and bicycle parking, subject to conditions of approval provided as Exhibit A of the said resolution;
b. Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Mercury Lane Project (EIR SCH No. 2018121032 Addendum No. 1) (Attachment D) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164;

4. Approve an Affordable Housing and Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (Density Bonus Agreement) with Brea Mercury LP (Attachment E);

5. Find the Affordable Housing Agreement, Loan Agreement, and Density Bonus Agreement exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3);

6. Amend the Fiscal Year 2025-27 Operating Budget to appropriate $2,331,800 in the City’s Housing Trust Fund (270) for a loan payment to the development of said affordable housing project;

7. Approve the deferral of development impact fees for said affordable housing project in an amount not-toexceed $659,311, as stated in the Loan Agreement (Attachment B); and

8. Authorize the City Manager or designee to:
a. Execute the Affordable Housing Agreement, including Notice of Affordability Restrictions, with Brea Mercury LP;
b. Execute the Loan Agreement with Brea Mercury LP;
c. Execute the Density Bonus Agreement with Brea Mercury LP; and d. Administratively make non-monetary revisions to the three above-mentioned agreements and related documents as necessary or appropriate.

BACKGROUND
Proposed Project Details
The Proposed Project is an 85-unit affordable senior housing development on a 1.01-acre site located at the southeast corner of Mercury Lane and Berry Street. It consists of 68 one-bedroom units and 17 two-bedroom units, with 63 on-site parking spaces. The Proposed Project offers 100 percent affordability to lower-income households, with the exception of one manager’s unit, prioritizing tenants who are seniors and/or veterans, as well as those employed in or residing in the City of Brea. The Proposed Project consists of an L-shaped, five-story, Art Deco inspired building with various amenities such as a leasing office, community room, exercise room, common area, and rooftop deck. Table 1 below shows the proposed affordability breakdown:

TABLE 1 – PROPOSED AFFORDABILITY BREAKDOWN
Income Category Income Range* Number of Units
Extremely Low 30% AMI or less 10
Very Low 31% to 50% AMI 9
Lower Income 51% to 60% AMI 26
61% to 70% AMI 39
Market
(manager’s unit) Above 120% AMI 1
Total 85
*Orange County 2025 Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of four is $136,600 The conceptual project plans are provided as Attachment F.

Project History
On June 2, 2020, the City Council approved the “Mercury Lane Workforce Housing Project” (Prior Project) by adopting Ordinance No. 1214. The Prior Project included a 114-unit multi-family residential development with 11 low-income units, 80 workforce units, and 23 market rate units. Approval of the Prior Project included rezoning the project site to a Planned Community Zone, adoption of a Planned Community Master Plan, and approval of a Development Agreement. Subsequent to the City Council’s approval in 2020, the applicant for the Prior Project submitted the required building permit plan check documents; however, construction of the Prior Project did not commence due to rapidly changing circumstances (i.e. Covid-19 pandemic).

On April 1, 2025, as part of the Greenbriar Residential Development Project (Greenbriar Project), the City Council approved a Development Agreement (Greenbriar DA) by adopting Ordinance No. 1258. The Greenbriar DA includes a provision to allow off-site construction of affordable units to satisfy the Greenbriar Project’s affordable housing requirement, as allowed by the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (Brea City Code [BCC] Section

20.40.050.B). The Greenbriar Project applicant, Lennar Homes of California, LLC, has identified the property located on the southeast corner of Mercury Lane and Berry Street as a site that would allow them to meet their affordable housing inclusionary requirements and has identified C&C Development Co. LLC as their partner.

In conjunction with the Greenbriar Project review, C&C Development Co. LLC (Applicant) submitted preliminary project plans for the Proposed Project, which is to serve as the off-site affordable housing for the Greenbriar Project. In their application, the Applicant provided general information regarding the Proposed Project, identified a variety of funding and financing sources to facilitate the construction of the Proposed Project, and requested that the City provide affordable housing funds to aide in the development of the Proposed Project, which included a $2,331,800 loan from the City’s Housing Trust Fund (270) and a $659,311 development impact fee deferral from the City.

At the April 15, 2025 City Council Study Session, the City Council received a project preview of the Proposed Project, which included the Proposed Project’s context and compatibility analysis with the Prior Project, along with the requested funding assistance. At this meeting, the City Council held a discussion and provided feedback for staff and the Applicant. The City Council expressed a general support for the Proposed Project, with a few requests for staff and the Applicant to explore further, which included the following:

Provision of additional on-site parking
Feasibility of implementing a shared parking agreement with a neighboring business Feasibility of increasing accessibility to public transportation (nearest bus stop is approximately ½ mile walking distance)
Provision of additional Extremely Low and Very Low-Income units Prioritization of seniors and/or veterans from the City’s affordable rental wait list The April 15, 2025 City Council Study Session staff report and meeting minutes are Attachments G and H, respectively.

Subsequent to the April 15, 2025 City Council meeting, staff and the Applicant explored various options to address the City Council’s concerns and requests. Below is a summary of the options explored:

Provision of additional on-site parking: The Applicant revised their design plans to include three additional parking spaces for a total of 63 on-site parking spaces.

Feasibility of implementing a shared parking agreement with a neighboring business: This option was determined as less achievable from a cost and safety standpoint as it would require either: 1) the neighboring property owner to create an ADA path of travel within their own property to create new accessway to the existing parking structure, or 2) the tenants of the Proposed Project would be required to walk the perimeter of the neighboring property to utilize the existing accessway to the existing structure.

Feasibility of increasing accessibility to public transportation: Staff reached out to the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) to discuss the matter; however, OCTA determined that adding a bus stop closer to the Project Site was not forecasted at this time.

Provision of additional Extremely Low and Very Low-Income units: The Applicant modified the affordability breakdown as shown in Table 1 above to provide one additional Extremely Low-income unit.

Further reducing the affordability levels would necessitate a larger funding request from the City in order to fill the gap.

Prioritization of seniors and/or veterans from the City’s wait list: Since the City’s wait list application does not include birthdate/age data, staff and the Applicant have collaborated to come up with a process that would prioritize applicants from the City’s affordable rental wait list when filling the units. This would be accomplished by the Applicant marketing the units, vetting applications, and preparing a wait list for the City’s review. From that list City staff would perform a cross comparison with the City’s affordable rental wait list to determine prioritization of the Applicant’s list.

While the above-mentioned parking and transportation options may not be feasible for the Proposed Project, there are third-party options available such as, OCTA Access, medical transportation, and veteran transportation. The Brea Senior Center also offers a Van Service for a small fee to qualified Brea seniors, as well as shuttle service to and from the Senior Center for qualified Brea seniors, which includes scheduled shopping trips to local retailers.

Additionally, the Applicant has committed to offer a rideshare program, where a vehicle would be made available on-site for personal use via a reservation system.

DISCUSSION
Following the April 15, 2025 City Council Study Session and discussions with staff as mentioned above, the Applicant is requesting the City Council’s consideration of the following to facilitate development of the Proposed Project:

Affordable Housing Agreement
As per Chapter 20.40.090 of the BCC, the Applicant is required to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to ensure the requirements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance are satisfied. The proposed Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachment A) requires a 55-year affordability period, specifies the number of units and corresponding affordability levels, provisions for determining eligibility of households, monitoring of the required affordability of the units, and property maintenance. The proposed Affordable Housing Agreement is required to be recorded against the residential development with the office of the Orange County Recorder.

The proposed Affordable Housing Agreement as presented includes minimal changes from the previous version presented to the Finance Committee on August 12, 2025, such as general formatting clean-up, terms of subordination under Section 10, and a narrative explaining the local preferences and priority system guidelines that would be implemented (Exhibit B).

Loan Agreement
The Applicant has identified a variety of funding and financing sources to facilitate construction of the Proposed Project, which includes 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program and loans from the County of Orange and private institutions. In addition to these funding sources, the Applicant is requesting assistance from the City of Brea in the form of a $2,331,800 loan, in addition to a development impact fee deferral in an amount not-to-exceed $659,311. The following summarizes the terms of the proposed Loan Agreement:

A $2,331,800 loan from the Housing Trust Fund (270) for acquisition, predevelopment costs, and development of the Proposed Project
A deferral of $659,311 in collection of the Development Impact Fees 55-year term
Interest rate of 0.25% (as stated in the Secured Promissory Notes included as Exhibits to the Loan Agreement)
Beginning on the earlier of (1) six months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or (2) closing of permanent financing, payments of principal and interest for both the loan and development impact fees deferral is structured to be made annually from surplus cash (also known as residual receipts) The Housing Trust Fund (270) is recommended as the source for the Applicant’s $2,331,800 loan request due to its current estimated fund balance of $3,390,136 as of Fiscal Year 2025-26. The alternative funding source, the Housing Successor Fund (280), has a lesser estimated fund balance of $2,372,979 as of Fiscal Year 2025-26.

The detailed terms of the requested financial assistance are provided in the proposed Loan Agreement and associated exhibits (Attachment B). The proposed Loan Agreement as presented includes minimal changes from the previous version presented to the Finance Committee on August 12, 2025, such as general formatting cleanup, terms of subordination under Section 3, and the inclusion of Exhibits B through F.

Density Bonus Request
Chapter 20.42 of the BCC implements California Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), which is a State mandate that requires local governments to grant developers an increase in maximum density permitted and other benefits, such as incentives/concessions (Incentives) and reduction/waivers of development standards (Waivers), as a matter of right. The intent of the Density Bonus Law is to facilitate the development of affordable housing and to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the cities’ Housing Elements. In addition to the State Law, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (BCC Chapter 20.40) also provides for additional incentives for flexible development standards when associated with the production of affordable housing units. A qualified housing development may utilize Incentives and Waivers from both the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, in which the City must grant the requested Incentives and Waivers. As such, pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law, an applicant who complies with providing affordable housing may request, and the City must grant, the number of incentives identified in Tables 20.40.060.a and 20.42.060.a of the BCC.

The Proposed Project provides 10 extremely low, nine very low, and 65 low income units. As such, the Proposed Project qualifies to utilize the State Density Bonus Law provisions and is eligible for reduced parking standards (no minimum number of parking space required), along with five Incentives and unlimited Waivers. In addition, through the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, the Proposed Project is eligible for five additional incentives. Although the Applicant is not proposing to exceed the maximum allowable density for the Proposed Project, the Applicant is proposing to utilize: 1) Density Bonus parking standards; and 2) two Density Bonus Waivers, as described below:

Density Bonus Parking Standards: The Proposed Project would utilize the Density Bonus parking standards, which is a reduced parking ratio. Table 2 below shows the proposed parking breakdown:

TABLE 2 – PROPOSED PARKING BREAKDOWN
* Covered or Uncovered Planned
Community
Master Plan
Standard
Density Bonus
Standard
Proposed
Required Parking
Spaces
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Guest Parking
Total
1 per unit
2 per unit
0 per unit
102
0 per unit
0 per unit
0 per unit
None

0.74 per unit
63 Density Bonus Waivers: The Project would utilize two Density Bonus Waivers to modify the development standards, shown in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3 – PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS
Development
Standard
Planned Community
Master Plan Standard Proposed
Minimum Common
Open Space
75 sq. ft. per unit
(6,375 sq. ft.)

23.53 sq. ft. per unit
(2,000 sq. ft.)
Bicycle Parking 1 per unit
(85 bicycle spaces)

0.59 per unit
(50 bicycle spaces)
Per Chapter 20.42.110 of the BCC, the Applicant is required to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City to ensure the requirements of the Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Ordinance are satisfied. The proposed Density Bonus Agreement included as Attachment E, consists of a description of the density bonus, incentives and/or waivers, number of units and affordability levels, and affordability term.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resource Code and Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the previously certified FEIR for the Prior Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2018121032) was prepared for the Proposed Project, based on findings that the Proposed Project requires changes and/or additions to the previously certified FEIR, but none of which would create a new or more significant impact.

The Addendum to the FEIR concluded that the Proposed Project is a reduced-scale version of the Prior Project assessed in the previously certified FEIR and does not introduce new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Since the Proposed Project reduces the overall building size, unit count, and parking demand, the Addendum found that the Proposed Project results in fewer environmental impacts than those analyzed in the previously certified FEIR. Therefore, the existing FEIR remains valid, and the Addendum sufficiently addresses the environmental review for the Proposed Project.

In addition, the proposed Affordable Housing Agreement, Density Bonus Agreement, and Loan Agreement are exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it is limited to executing agreements that would specify the required affordable housing obligations and loan terms for the Proposed Project and as such, the proposed agreements will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and will not have a significant effect on the environment. As previously detailed, the Proposed Project’s potential impact to the environment has been adequately analyzed in the certified FEIR and the Addendum to the FEIR.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Finance Committee reviewed staff’s recommendation at the August 12, 2025 meeting and recommended to proceed to City Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Applicant is requesting two forms of financial assistance for the Proposed Project, which includes a loan for acquisition, predevelopment, and development costs of the Proposed Project, and a deferred payment of development impact fees. If approved, staff will amend the Fiscal Year 2025-27 Operating Budget to appropriate $2,331,800 in the City’s Housing Trust Fund (270) for a loan payment to the development of said affordable housing project, resulting in Fund 270 having a projected available fund balance of $1,208,874 as of June 30, 2026. In addition, there will be an indirect impact to the General Fund (110), as development impact fees will still be required but collected at a later date.

Attachments
ATTACHMENT A - Affordable Housing Agreement and Notice of Affordability Restrictions.pdf ATTACHMENT B - Loan Agreement.pdf
ATTACHMENT C - Resolution for Density Bonus No. 2025-01 and Addendeum to the FEIR.pdf ATTACHMENT D - Addendum Memorandum to Final Environmental Impact Report.pdf ATTACHMENT E - Density Bonus Agreement.pdf
ATTACHMENT F - Conceptual Project Plans.pdf
ATTACHMENT G - April 15, 2025 City Council Study Session Staff Report.pdf ATTACHMENT H - April 15, 2025 City Council Study Session Meeting Minutes.pdf

ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA
APPROVING DENSITY BONUS NO. 2025-01 TO ALLOW UTILIZATION OF