Brea City Council
August 19, 2025

City Council and Successor Agency
to the Brea Redevelopment
Agency Agenda
Study Session - 6:45 p.m.

General Session - 7:00 p.m.

Tuesday, August 19, 2025, 7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1 Civic Center Circle
Brea, California 92821
** Revised **
Blair Stewart, Mayor                                         Cecilia Hupp, Mayor Pro Tem Christine Marick, Council Member     Marty Simonoff, Council Member     Steven Vargas, Council Member This agenda contains a brief general description of each item Council will consider. The City Clerk has on file copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on this Agenda available for public inspection.

Contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 990-7756 or view the Agenda and related materials on the City’s website at www.cityofbrea.gov. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, CA during normal business hours. Such documents may also be available on the City’s website subject to staff’s ability to post documents before the meeting.

Procedures for Addressing the Council
The Council encourages interested people to address this legislative body by making a brief presentation on a public hearing item when the Mayor calls the item or address other items under Matters from the Audience. State law generally prohibits the City Council from responding to or acting upon matters not listed on this agenda.

The Council encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons the opportunity to speak, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. Council rules prohibit clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. Please silence all cell phones and other electronic equipment while the Council is in session. Thank you.

Written comments may be submitted in advance of the meeting by emailing [email protected].

Written comments received by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the Council, will be made available to the public at the meeting, and will be included in the official record of the meeting.

Special Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 990-7757. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable City staff to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II) Important Notice
The City of Brea shows both live broadcasts and replays of City Council Meetings on Brea Cable Channel 3 and over the Internet at www.cityofbrea.gov. Your attendance at this public meeting may result in the recording and broadcast of your image and/or voice as previously described.

1. STUDY SESSION - EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 3RD FLOOR - 6:45 P.M.

1.A. Call to Order/Roll Call

1.B. Public Comment

1.C. Clarify Regular Meeting Topics

1.D. Designate Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, October 8-10, 2025, Long Beach Convention Center

1.E. Council Member Reports/Requests

1.F. Study Session Adjournment

2. GENERAL SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLAZA LEVEL - 7:00 P.M.

2.A. Call to Order/Roll Call

2.B. Pledge of Allegiance: Boy Scout Troop 707

2.C. Invocation: Pastor Rick Darden, Friends Community Church

2.D. Presentation: Business of the Quarter

2.E. Report - Prior Study Session

2.F. Community Announcements

2.G. Matters from the Audience

2.H. Response to Public Inquiries

3. PUBLIC HEARING
This portion of the meeting is for matters that legally require an opportunity for public input.

Audience participation is encouraged and is limited to 5 minutes per speaker.

3.A. Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility (Amazon)- Environmental Impact Report No. 2023-01, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-193, and Plan Review No. 2022-09
— Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals by David Maxey and CARE CA and uphold the Planning Commission's decision by taking the following actions:
— 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-054, denying appeals and certifying EIR No. 2023-01, State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241, which analyzed the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project, and which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15132 (Contents of Final EIR) and 15090 (Certification of the Final EIR); — 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-055, denying appeals and approving PR No. 2022-09 to allow the demolition of an existing 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape area, and the construction of an industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility, including surface parking and associated landscape areas, based on the findings and conclusions in the resolution, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; and
— 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-056, denying appeals and approving TPM No. 2022-193 to reconfigure and merge three existing lots into one lot to accommodate the Project, based on the findings and conclusions in the resolution, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
This agenda category is for City Council consideration of a wide variety of topics related to the City's operations. Public comments regarding items in this section should be presented during "Matters from the Audience."

4.A. Mercury Senior Apartments Project: Approval of a Density Bonus, Environmental Impact Report Addendum, financial requests, and associated agreements — 1. Approve an Affordable Housing Agreement, including Notice of Affordability Restrictions, with Brea Mercury LP for the Mercury Senior Apartments Project; — 2. Approve a Loan Agreement with Brea Mercury LP, 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 Resolution No. 2025-057 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) 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; — 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-to-exceed $659,311, as stated in the Loan Agreement; 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.

4.B. Brea Construction Code Tri-Annual Code Update
— 1. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance 1264, "an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brea adopting by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Administrative, Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building Standards, Energy, Historical Building, and Existing Building Codes, The 2024 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, and the 2024 Edition of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, together with appendices, amendments, deletions and penalties, amending Title 15 of the Brea City Code, and approving a CEQA Exemption Determination", adopting by reference and amending, Codes comprising the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, and related “model” codes (collectively “California Code(s)” sometimes herein); and
— 2. Schedule a public hearing for September 16, 2025 to consider adoption of the Ordinance No. 1264. The adoption of the 2025 California Codes will have little or no impact on the General Fund.

4.C. 2025 Fire Code and Wildland Urban Interface Ordinance Introduction — 1. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 1265, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brea adopting by reference and amending the 2025 California Wildland – Urban Interface Code and the California Fire Code and portions of the 2024 International Fire Code, as the City of Brea Fire Code, together with certain amendments, additions, deletions and exceptions, amending Title 16 (Fire Safety) of the Brea City Code, and approving a CEQA exemption determination," adopting by reference and amending the 2025 California Fire Code (CFC) and 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code (CWUIC); and — 2. Schedule a public hearing for September 16, 2025 to consider adoption of the Ordinance No. 1265. The direct fiscal impact of the recommended Code adoption is minimal and limited to staff training costs and Code book purchases estimated at $3,000.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Council/Successor Agency approves all Consent Calendar matters with one motion unless Council/Agency or Staff requests further discussion of a particular item. Items of concern regarding Consent Calendar matters should be presented during “Matters from the Audience."

5.A. July 15, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes — 1. Approve.

5.B. Accept a State of California Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) in the Amount of $230,902.82
— 1. Adopt Resolution No,. 2025-058 accepting a State of California Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) Award for the education, prevention, and enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis, in the amount of $230,902.82, for the one-year grant program which begins July 1, 2025 and ends June 30, 2026. This would result in a net increase to the Traffic fleet budget (General Fund) of $9,100 per year.
— 2. Authorize the Chief of Police to execute the Grant Agreement. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

5.C. Desktop and Mobile Computer, and Peripheral Replacements — 1. Authorize the City’s Procurement & Contracts Administrator to issue a Purchase Order to Intelli-Tech in the amount of $86,269.88, for the purchase of laptops for the first phase of citywide computer replacements. Funding for these devices has already been appropriated in the current fiscal year’s budget.

5.D. Resolution Approving the City’s Participation in the National Opioid Bankruptcy Settlements with Purdue Pharma L.P., the Sackler Family, and Any Future National Opioid Settlements — 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-059 authorizing the City Manager to execute participation forms and related documents to join the national opioid bankruptcy settlements with Purdue Pharma L.P. and the Sackler Family; and
— 2. Authorize participation in any future national opioid settlements deemed appropriate by the City Manager. Adoption of the resolution creates no negative fiscal impact to the City of Brea.

5.E. Authorization to Enter into a Service Agreement with SMART Compliance for a Recycling Tracking and Recordkeeping Software for CalRecycle SB 1383 Compliance — 1. Approve a Service Agreement with SMART 1383, as a result of a competitive selection process for an SB 1383 compliance reporting and record keeping software five-year subscription purchase and implementation in an amount not to exceed $100,000; and — 2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute and administer the agreement and documentation necessary to procure SB 1383 compliance and reporting software system.

Utilization of the grant funds will sustain the SMART 1383 software and any potential customization charges. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

5.F. Award Contract with International Line Builders, Inc. dba ILB Electric for the Integrated Crime Center (ICC) Citywide Camera Network, CIP 7719
— 1. Approve the Plans and Specifications; and
— 2. Receive bids; and
— 3. Award Contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, International Line Builders, Inc., dba ILB Electric, in the amount of $1,223,382.00; and — 4. Authorize the City Engineer to issue Change Orders up to a "not to exceed" amount of 10% of the Contract Price. The BSCC grant will reimburse these costs incurred through December 2026.

5.G. Award Contract with US Builders and Consultants, Inc. for Briarwood Lift Station Rehabilitation, CIP 7631
— 1. Approve the Plans and Specifications; and
— 2. Receive bids; and
— 3. Award Contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, US Builders and Consultants, Inc., in the amount of $571,400.00; and
— 4. Authorize the City Engineer to issue Change Orders up to a "not to exceed" amount of 10% of the Contract Price. Funds within the approved budget are from the Sewer Fund (Fund 430). There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund from this Project.

5.H. City’s Network Switches Replacements
— 1. Authorize the City’s Procurement & Contracts Administrator to issue a Purchase Order for network switches, management software, and professional services for implementation in the amount of $321,496 to VectorUSA.
— 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Professional Services Agreement with VectorUSA.  Funding for this project has already been appropriated in the current fiscal year’s budget.

5.I. Agreement with HdL Companies for Sales, Business License, and Other Tax Reporting Services and HdL Coren & Cone for property tax auditing services and statistical reporting — 1. Approve a five (5) year agreement with Hinderliter, del Llamas & Associates DBA HdL Companies for Sales Tax, Business License Tax, and other tax reporting services, and with HdL Coren & Cone for property tax auditing and statistical reporting. Both agreements include the option to renew for up to two (2) additional one-year terms. — 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements with HdL Companies and HdL Coren & Cone, including any future extensions.
— 3. Approve and adopt Resolution No. 2025-060 authorizing HdL Companies to act on behalf of the City in matters before the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), including access to confidential taxpayer information as necessary to perform the contracted services.

5.J. Agreement with Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. for NPDES Stormwater Management Services — 1. Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. for NPDES Stormwater Management Services; and
— 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve up to three (3) additional one-year extensions.

Funds are available from the NPDES account, utilizing Storm Water Fees (Fund 410).

5.K. Cooperative Agreement with City of Fullerton and City of La Habra for the Palm Street Paving Improvements, CIP 7334
— 1. Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Fullerton and City of La Habra for the Palm Street Paving Improvements Project; and
— 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any non-monetary contract amendments and ancillary documents subsequently required to implement the Cooperative Agreement.  The Project is in the Fiscal Year 2025-27 CIP Budget. Funding sources include Gas Tax (Fund 220) and Measure M (Fund 260).

5.L. Acceptance of donation from Bridge Energy in the amount of $14,000 and authorize purchase of ballistic shields
— 1. Accept a donation from Bridge Energy to the Police Department in the amount of $14,000. — 2. Authorize the City Manager to purchase two (2) ballistic shields for the Police Department.

Funding for these items will be fully covered by the donation from Bridge Energy and will have no impact on the City’s budget.

5.M. Monthly Report of Investments for the City of Brea for Period Ended July 31, 2025 — 1. Receive and file.

5.N. July Outgoing Payment Log and City Disbursement Registers for July 11, 2025 , July 18, 2025, July 25, 2025, August 1, 2025, and August 8, 2025
— 1. Receive and file.

6. CITY/SUCCESSOR AGENCY - CONSENT

6.A. Monthly Report of Investments for the Successor Agency to the Brea Redevelopment Agency for Period Ended July 31, 2025
— 1. Receive and file.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS

7.A. City Manager

7.B. City Attorney

7.C. Council Requests

8. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS

8.A. Council Announcements

9. ADJOURNMENT

9.A. Meeting Adjournment
Date Posted: August 14, 2025
CITYof  BREA
Communication
August 19, 2025
Item No. 1D.

Designate Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, October 8-10, 2025, Long Beach Convention Center

TO PREPARED BY
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Victoria Popescu, City Clerk

DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
Kristin Griffith, City Manager Kristin Griffith, City Manager Attachments
2025 Voting Delegate Information Packet.pdf
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2025
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 8-10, 2025 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 10, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 24. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 24, 2025
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 24. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

CITYof  BREA
Communication
August 19, 2025
Item No. 3A.

Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility (Amazon)- Environmental Impact Report No. 2023-01, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-193, and Plan Review No. 2022-09

TO PREPARED BY
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Jessica Newton, Senior Planner

DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
Jason Killebrew, Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director Kristin Griffith, City Manager

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 13, 2025, the City of Brea (City) Planning Commission approved the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, which consisted of the following entitlements:

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2023-01: Certification of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241), which analyzed potential environmental impacts of the proposed project;
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-193: Reconfiguration and merger of three existing lots into one lot; and
Plan Review (PR) No. 2022-09: Demolition of an existing 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.

These entitlements herein are referred to as the “Project” or “DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project”.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s decision, the City received separate appeals from (in the order filed) David Maxey, Supporter Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), and Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). SAFER has withdrawn its appeal. The remaining appeals request that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project. The City Council is the final decision-making body on these appeals, with the responsibility of conducting a de novo public hearing and the authority to uphold, modify, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal by David Maxey and CARE CA and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision by taking the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment A), denying appeals and certifying EIR No. 2023-01, State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241, which analyzed the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project, and which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15132 (Contents of Final EIR) and 15090 (Certification of the Final EIR);

2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment B), denying appeals and approving PR No. 2022-09 to allow the demolition of an existing 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape area, and the construction of an industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility, including surface parking and associated landscape areas, based on the findings and conclusions in the resolution, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment D); and

3. Adopt a resolution (Attachment C), denying appeals approving TPM No. 2022-193 to reconfigure and merge three existing lots into one lot to accommodate the Project, based on the findings and conclusions in the resolution, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment D).

BACKGROUND
Project Site
The Project site, located at 275 Valencia Avenue, encompasses a 31.6-acre property at the northwest corner of Valencia Avenue and Nasa Street. Currently, the Project site features a three-story, 637,503 square-foot office building previously occupied by Bank of America, which continued to occupy the Project site until December 2022.

Existing vehicular access to the Project site is provided via eight driveway approaches: four on Valencia Avenue, one on Nasa Street, and three on Surveyor Avenue. The Project site mainly has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial on the approximately 24.2-acre northern portion and a Mixed Use II designation on the remaining approximately 7.4-acre southern portion. In accordance with the General Plan, the site has zoning designations of M-1 and MU-II. The Project Vicinity Map and surrounding zoning designations is displayed in Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1 - PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Processing Timeline
On May 31, 2022, the Applicant filed applications for the Project, which included the aforementioned entitlements.

On July 13, 2023, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) informing the public that an EIR is being prepared to analyze the Project’s potential environmental impact, and provided information on the planned scoping meeting. The public comment period concluded on August 11, 2023, and a total of 16 agencies and interested parties responded to the NOP and provided written comments.

On July 24, 2023, the City held a scoping meeting on the Project’s EIR. A total of 20 individuals were in attendance, with the majority being residents of the La Floresta community. At the end of the meeting, ten written comment cards were submitted. In general, the comments expressed concerns regarding current and future traffic (including the landfill traffic), noise, air quality, pedestrian safety, trail access, and 24-hour operation.

On October 30, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) informing the public that the Draft EIR would be available for public review and comment. The public review period for the Draft EIR started on November 6, 2024, and concluded on January 6, 2025, and a total of 17 written comments were submitted by agencies and interested parties.

On November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission was presented with an introduction to the Project. The November 12, 2024, Planning Commission staff report and the meeting minutes are provided as Attachments E and F, respectively.

On May 2, 2025, the Final EIR, including the Response to Comments (RTC), was published.

On May 13, 2025, during its regularly scheduled meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and unanimously voted to adopt Resolution Nos. PC 2025-14, 2025-15, and 2025-16 (Attachments G, H, and I), which respectively certified the EIR, approved PR No. 2022-09, and approved TPM No. 2022- 193 to allow construction of the Project. The May 13, 2025, Planning Commission staff report and the meeting minutes are provided as Attachments J and K, respectively.

On May 16, 2025 and May 22, 2025, appeals were filed by David Maxey (Attachment L) and CARE CA (Attachment M), respectively, within the 10-day appeal period.

On May 22, 2025, SAFER also filed an appeal. However, following further discussions with the Applicant, SAFER withdrew its appeal on July 29, 2025.

Project Description
The Project proposes to demolish an existing three-story, 637,503 square-foot office building and associated surface parking and landscape areas, and to construct a new, single-story, 181,500-square-foot parcel delivery facility, consisting of 163,350 square feet of merchandise warehouse space and 18,150 square feet of ancillary office space with associated surface parking and landscape areas. The proposed building also includes two attached van loading operations that would occur under two attached canopies (approximately 49,000 square feet each) on the north and south sides of the facility building, where van loading activities would occur. The Project also includes reconfiguring and merging of three existing parcels into a single parcel. Figures 2 and 3 below illustrate the Project Site Plan and conceptual rendering, respectively.

FIGURE 2 - PROJECT SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3 - PROJECT CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS (VALENCIA AVENUE VIEW) The Project is intended for the future operation of a parcel delivery facility for Amazon.com Services LLC. The Project would operate as a “last-mile facility,” which is a delivery station that receives packages from a “middle-mile facility” (also known as a sort center) or a “first-mile facility” (also known as a fulfillment center), for final sorting and delivery to customers. The proposed facility would absorb the service areas currently covered by five existing delivery stations in the region (two in Anaheim and one each in Industry, Bloomington, and Riverside) to reduce the distance traveled by delivery vans. Figure 4 below illustrates how the company fulfills customer orders from a fulfillment center to home delivery.

FIGURE 4 - AMAZON LOGISTICS
The Project Plans, including the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, are provided as Attachment N, and a detailed Project description and analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency and compliance with the General Plan and the Brea City Code (BCC) is provided in the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment J) and the associated resolutions attached to this report.

Appeal Applications
Following the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project on May 13, 2025, the City received three separate appeals within the 10-day appeal period. One appeal, filed by SAFER, has been withdrawn. This hearing therefore only concerns the appeals filed by David Maxey (Attachment L) and CARE CA (Attachment M). An overview of those appeals is provided in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1 - OVERVIEW OF APPEALS
# Appellant Basis for Appeal
1 David
Maxey
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise analysis method utilized in the EIR is inadequate because it does not represent a real-world measurement of night-time truck noise, which has the potential to cause sleep interruptions for the residents residing at the units located along Valencia Avenue.
2 CARE CA
The Project is not compliant with the CEQA or applicable land use laws because:

The Project’s land use (warehouse) conflicts with the MU-II Zone standards.

The Project’s land use (warehouse) is inconsistent with the General Plan Housing Element.

The Final EIR fails to disclose or mitigate potentially significant health risks, air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, transportation, and cumulative impacts.

The above-mentioned appellants herein are referred to as “Appellant” or “Appellants”.

ANALYSIS
The claims made by each Appellant and the related responses are as follows:

Appellant #1: David Maxey
Claim: David Maxey’s appeal contends that the “noise analysis method cited in EIR is inadequate to measure likely real-world nightly sleep interruptions to several residents in the multi-story units adjacent to Valencia, between La Crescenta and Nasa/La Floresta,” and that the CNEL method used does not represent a realistic measure to assess the potential for sleep interruptions. The appeal references specific concerns presented in a January 3, 2025 comment letter submitted to the City during the public comment period for the Draft EIR.

Response: The CNEL metric utilized in the EIR provides a comprehensive evaluation of noise exposure by incorporating all traffic noise events over a 24-hour period and applying time-dependent penalties to account for increased sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. These penalties are applied to ensure that nighttime noise is given appropriate consideration in assessing potential impacts on sensitive receptors, such as residential properties. The CNEL metric is a widely accepted standard used in environmental noise assessments under CEQA, and has been utilized by the City in past EIRs. As explained in the Final EIR Section 2.2, Topical Response No. 3- Operational Traffic Noise, because the City does not regulate noise from transportation sources for any projects and does not have noise standards for such sources, the thresholds recommended by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) were applied. The CNEL analysis conducted for the Project accounts for the cumulative effect of noise exposure throughout the day and night, incorporating the conservative assumption that all 31 line-haul trucks would operate during nighttime hours. The analysis showed that none of the Project’s roadway segments would experience noise level increases that exceed FICON standards. The roadway segment on Valencia Avenue between Imperial Highway and La Floresta Drive is expected to experience up to a 2.2 dBA noise increase as a result of the Project; however, this increase does not exceed the FICON standard of 3dBA CNEL and would be below the level of noise increase that is considered perceptible to the human ear. The methodology and thresholds used to analyze traffic noise impacts in the EIR, as well as nighttime noise levels generated by the Project’s line-haul trucks, are further described in the Final EIR, Section 2.2, Topical Response No. 3- Operational Traffic Noise.

In addition, CEQA does not specifically regulate or assess subjective and individual human responses such as sleep disturbance (See Final EIR Section 2.2 No. 3 - Operational Traffic Noise for further explanation). Noise is inherently a cumulative and spatially variable environmental factor, and individual experiences of noise can vary significantly due to factors associated with each person. Regulatory thresholds and mitigation measures are developed based on broader community-level noise studies, which assess overall exposure patterns and long-term averages rather than isolated instances of noise events. Community-level noise standards are developed to maintain a reasonable quality of life for the majority of residents and sensitive receptors.

As such, the noise analysis conducted in the EIR sufficiently analyzed potential noise impacts of the Project. For reference, the City’s RTC and the comment letter referenced by the Appellant can be found in the Final EIR Sections 2.2, Topical Response No. 3- Operational Traffic Noise, and 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC No. 6-12- 6-24.

Appellant #2: CARE CA
In summary, CARE CA’s appeal contends that the Project does not comply with CEQA or applicable land use laws.

The appeal also references a number of concerns presented in CARE CA’s public comment letter dated May 13, 2025, which was submitted to the City for the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. The following provides the specific issues raised and the City’s corresponding responses:

In summary, CARE CA’s appeal contends that the Project does not comply with CEQA or applicable land use laws.

The appeal also references a number of concerns presented in CARE CA’s public comment letter dated May 13, 2025, which was submitted to the City for the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. The following provides the specific claims made and the City’s corresponding responses:

Claim #1: The Project’s warehouse parking lot and delivery van staging area in the MU-II Zone conflict with BCC Section 20.258.010, which prohibits any warehousing in the MU-II Zone.

Response: The southern approximately 7.4-acre portion of the Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II and is zoned MU-II. The proposed 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility would be constructed only within the portion of the Project site that is designated in the General Plan as Light Industrial and is zoned M-1, which allows a warehouse use as a permitted use. The portion of the Project site designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use II and zoned MU-II would only consist of surface parking and drive aisles, which exists today. Permitted uses within the MU-II Zone include Automotive, parking lots/structures. Furthermore, BCC Section

20.11.020.C authorizes the Community Development Director to interpret whether a specific proposed use fits within or is similar to an existing use class as either permitted or conditionally permitted. Under this authority, the Community Development Director has determined that the Project’s proposed warehousing operations qualify as an Industrial, minor land use, which is permitted by right in the M-1 Zone, and that the loading and circulation of delivery vans is an ancillary/temporary activity of the Project that is incidental to the primary use.

As such, the Project’s warehouse parking lot and delivery van staging area in the MU-II Zone do not conflict with BCC Section 20.258.010. For reference, the City’s response to the public comments alleging the Project is not consistent with the Project site’s General Plan land use designation and MU-II zoning designation can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.2, Topical Response No. 2- Land Use and Zoning.

Claim #2: The Project is in conflict with the high-priority Fair Housing Program of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element to pursue the introduction of workforce housing on Amazon’s 31-acre warehouse site.

Response: Although the MU-II portion of the Project site was rezoned as a result of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, it is not one of the City’s Housing Opportunity Sites and is only listed as an additional site that has been identified as a site that has potential for future housing. The Project site is not needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation, and the Project would not have an impact on the City’s compliance with the Housing Element. The introduction of workforce housing on the Project site is not being proposed at this time, but there is the potential for future housing within the MU-II portion of the Project site as there is no structure (i.e. building) proposed within this area. Draft EIR Chapter 6.0, Alternatives, describes how the development of residential uses on the Project Site was considered and rejected as an alternative because it would not attain the basic Project objectives. The Housing Element Program (Program) to pursue the introduction of workforce housing on the Project Site is listed as a potential action item in the Housing Element’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis. However, the Program does not mandate that the City require introduction of workforce housing on the Project site, and the Project would not preclude pursuing the introduction of workforce housing on the Project site in the future. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with the City’s Housing Element or AFFH Program.

As such, the Project is not in conflict with the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element. For reference, the City’s response to the public comments alleging the Project is not consistent with the Project site’s General Plan land use designation and MU-II zoning designation can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.2, Topical Response No. 2- Land Use and Zoning.

Claim #3: The Final EIR fails to comply with CEQA by failing to accurately disclose or mitigate potentially significant health risk, air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, transportation, and cumulative impacts, failing to support its significance findings with substantial evidence.

The following provides detailed responses to claims made by the Appellant related to CEQA:

Claim #3a: The EIR project description is inadequate, as the use of back-up generators is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

Response: The EIR’s project description, CalEEMod results, and health risk assessment did not include the use of back-up generators because the Project does not propose the installation or use of permanent back-up generators. During short durations of power failure, site operations would cease until power can be properly restored. During longer-term power outages potentially caused by a natural disaster, the Project would obtain a building permit to utilize a temporary Air Quality Management District (AQMD)- certified backup generator that would only be on site during the duration of the power outage. Once permanent power is restored, the temporary back-up generator will be removed from the Project site. As such, there is no need for the project description to include the use of back-up generators. For reference, the City’s response to this claim can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC No. 17-14.

Claim #3b: The Final EIR’s environmental setting discussion is inadequate. The Final EIR still overestimates trip generation from the existing use, and the description of ambient noise levels is not supported by substantial evidence.

Response: The EIR’s environmental setting description is accurate, specifically the trip generation calculation from the existing use and measurement of ambient noise levels. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, determined that it is appropriate for the existing baseline for the Project to include the existing three-story office building as occupied. This determination is supported by substantial evidence, including the building’s ability to be reoccupied without entitlement approval, Bank of America’s 25 years of operational history as recent as the year 2022, and the inclusion of the previous Bank of America use in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM).

The EIR includes four 15-minute noise measurements, which were conducted to establish representative baseline noise levels that reflect the existing conditions in the Project area during the daytime. The noise analysis in the EIR also calculated transportation noise levels from various roadway segments in the Project area under existing conditions in the 24-hour CNEL noise metric using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), which is an established and widely accepted model for use in preparing transportation noise analyses. This method is consistent with industry standards and CEQA requirements.

As such, the EIR’s environmental setting description is accurate. For reference, the City’s response to this claim can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC Nos. 17-12 & 17-

13. Claim #3c: The Final EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potentially significant transportation impacts, as it underestimates trips generated by the Project, improperly takes credit for trips from existing Amazon facilities, and the Project would have a potentially significant unmitigated VMT impact.

Response: The estimated trip count for the Project site is based on data provided by the Applicant, which was derived from real-life data from other similar parcel delivery stations. A trip generation study was conducted of several similar operations in California in 2021 and found that while there are variations in the times, the daily volumes are very close to the predicted volume. This information was provided to the City’s Traffic Engineer, who instructed the Applicant’s transportation analysts to use a higher value for the AM peak hour and agreed with the results of the trip generation study. Additionally, the trip generation study focused on beginning-of-shift and end-of-shift trips since those can be estimated more directly, while the number of employees, if any, that may drive off-site during mid-day breaks is too speculative.

The assumption related to the Project’s potential to increase the overall number of delivery trips in the region is speculative because it assumes an unsubstantiated future customer base increase. There is a finite number of deliveries within a region, and adding additional delivery centers reduces the number of deliveries from any one location and also reduces the distance traveled by each delivery center. The Project would be absorbing trips that are already associated with the existing customer base, closer to the customers.

Therefore, the Project is expected to result in reductions of both trips and distance traveled within the region.

In addition, the new parcel delivery station proposed by the Project would reduce trips from surrounding delivery stations, leading to fewer delivery vans and fewer Flex trips, resulting in regional savings. Based on the analysis, the new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the Project site would still be less than the VMT for the Bank of America use.

As such, the EIR adequately analyzed the Project’s potential transportation impacts. For reference, the City’s response to this claim can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC Nos. 17-18, -19, & -20.

Claim #3d: The Final EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts, as it improperly compresses the analysis of the Project’s impacts, lacks a binding requirement to use Tier 4 equipment, fails to analyze emissions from onsite equipment, and the health risk analysis underestimates impacts.

Response: As stated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), construction engines manufactured after 2014 are required to meet Tier 4 Final air quality standards, which represent the most stringent emissions standards for non-road diesel engines. According 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. 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. This has been noted as a project design feature related to air quality that the Project will operate Tier 4 equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp).

The appeal alleges that the air quality analysis fails to include emissions from cargo-handling equipment, such as forklifts. However, the air quality analysis used applicant-provided operational equipment specifications. Specifically, the Applicant would utilize conveyor belts, carts, and electric forklifts to move inventory. Non-electric forklifts are not intended to be used by the Applicant.

Lastly, neither the adjusted cancer risk for the maximum exposed individual receptor in the Draft EIR nor the revised ratio number calculated by the Appellant exceeds the significance threshold.

As such, the EIR adequately analyzed the Project’s potential air quality and health risk impacts. For reference, the City’s response to the claim that the Final EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts as it improperly compresses the analysis of the Project’s impacts can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC No. 17-21.

Claim #3e: The Final EIR fails to adequately evaluate potentially significant noise impacts, as the construction noise significance threshold is unsupported by substantial evidence, construction noise impacts are potentially significant, noise from nighttime truck trips is potentially significant, and the Final EIR fails to analyze impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment.

Response: The construction noise analysis shown in the Draft EIR summarized in Table 5.5-5 was conducted using a worst-case scenario approach, which assumes that all construction equipment operates simultaneously at an acoustical usage percentage identified in the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). As described in the RCNM User Guide (FHWA, 2006, p. 20–21), the “acoustical usage factor” reflects the percentage of time each piece of equipment operates at full power during a given hour. The usage factors used in the model were derived from empirical data compiled through the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project in Boston and embedded in the RCNM's internal database. These values represent typical operational behavior of construction equipment and provide a realistic estimate of average sound energy over a one-hour period. This conservative methodology ensures that the analysis accounts for maximum potential noise levels, even though actual noise levels during construction would likely be lower due to factors such as staggered equipment use, work breaks, and varying construction phases. Additionally, construction noise is temporary and would cease upon Project completion. Construction noise is short-term, occurring as a normal part of the community’s noise environment, and intermittent, occurring only during designated work hours in compliance with City’s noise regulations. BCC Section 8.20.070 exempts construction noise, provided that the activities do not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday or any time on Sundays or federal holidays. In order to remain compliant with the City’s noise regulations, the Project would be required to follow these limitations on construction hours.

In addition to this comparison of Project construction to City construction noise standards, the EIR calculates Project construction noise and compares the results to the recommended Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise standard contained in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Modeled construction noise is then added to an estimation of the ambient noise level generally experienced under current conditions in order to disclose actual sound levels that would be present with the addition of construction noise to the existing noise environment. As shown in Table 5.5-5 on page 5.5-19 in Section 5.5, Noise, of the DEIR, Project construction noise would result in an increase of 1.8 dBA over the general existing noise environment currently experienced in the Project area and Project construction noise combined with existing ambient noise would not exceed the FTA threshold during any Project construction phase. The Appellant’s adjusted nine dBA also would not exceed the FTA threshold.

The Project’s increase in traffic noise would not result in an increase in excess of the FICON standards. The roadway segments of Valencia Avenue and Imperial Highway east of Valencia Avenue that traverse residential land uses would experience noise increases of up to 2.2 decibels and 1.5 decibels, respectively, as a result of the Project. In terms of Project noise generated on the Project Site, Receptor 1, which represents a residential use east of the Project site, would experience exterior noise levels of almost 39 dBA during the nighttime from the proposed onsite activities on the Project Site. Applying the more conservative exterior-to-interior noise reduction with closed windows, Receptor 1 would experience interior noise levels of

18.5 dBA Leq during the nighttime as a result of operations on the Project Site. Noise levels this low would not result in sleep disruption. Therefore, the interior noise impacts as a result of the Project would be below the levels associated with significant disruption.

Lastly, the Project does not include cold storage and thus would not involve refrigeration. The number, size, and sound levels of rooftop mechanical equipment can vary significantly depending on several factors, including energy efficiency requirements, climate control needs and technological advancements in HVAC design. While the specific make and model of these units are unknown, similar commercial-grade HVAC rooftop units typically generate noise levels of 69.5 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. Noise from a point source, such as an HVAC unit, attenuates by 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. Using the 250 feet distance referenced in the comment, the HVAC units would result in noise levels of approximately 41.5 dBA at the nearby residences, which is below the City’s daytime (55 dBA) and nighttime (50 dBA) exterior noise standards. Additionally, the Project would be conditioned to require that noise-generating equipment be located and screened to avoid creating a nuisance. Finally, modern rooftop mechanical equipment often includes noise attenuation features, such as acoustic barriers, sound enclosures, parapets, and low-noise fan designs, which further reduce environmental noise impacts. Therefore, the Project’s noise impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment would be less than significant.

As such, the EIR adequately analyzed the Project’s potential noise impacts. For reference, the City’s response to this claim can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC Nos. 17-22, -23, & -24.

Claim #3f: The Final EIR fails to include a sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures.

Response: The Project site is located in an urbanized area currently served by Southern California Edison (SCE), and extension of utilities would not be required for the Project. The Appellant cites the case of League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain v. County of Placer (Lake Tahoe Mountain) (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, which the Appellant alleges requires lead agencies to investigate whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into a project. That case involved a specific plan amendment to allow 760 residential units and 6.6 acres of commercial uses on a 1,430-acre undeveloped coniferous forest parcel that would require significant infrastructure improvements to extend utilities to the site. There is a significant difference between the energy considerations of a large-scale specific plan project that would result in the construction of sizeable residential and commercial uses on an expansive greenfield site in rural Placer County and that of a parcel delivery facility project on a 31.6-acre developed site in an urbanized area of Southern California.

The Project would develop a site that is less than 2.2 percent of the land area of the forest parcel in the Lake Tahoe Mountain case.

The Project would not generate unanticipated additional energy use compared to the three-story office building previously occupied by Bank of America, and it would utilize renewable energy resources per California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards. In addition, although the Project is only required to provide a solar-ready roof, the Project would be conditioned to install renewable energy systems/technologies prior to final occupancy, including but not limited to solar panels. The Project would install energy-efficient appliances and lighting, a solar-ready roof, EV charging stations, EV-capable stalls, and low-flow water fixtures in compliance with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). As stated in Section 5.2, Energy, of the Draft EIR, the Project would also provide two additional EV charging stations in excess of the regulatory requirements.

CEQA does not require the Draft EIR to evaluate the measures to reduce the Project’s energy consumption in excess of Title 24 or to demonstrate that the Project’s EV charging stations would meaningfully reduce the Project’s energy consumption or that they represent the maximum stations feasible for the Project.

As such, the EIR correctly concluded that the Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. For reference, the City’s response to this claim can be found in the Final EIR Section

2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC No. 17-25.

Claim #3g: The Final EIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze and mitigate the Project’s cumulative impacts, as it fails to evaluate cumulative construction air quality impacts, fails to adequately analyze cumulative operational air quality impacts, and fails to analyze and mitigate cumulative construction noise impacts.

Response: The approach to assessing cumulative air quality impacts is based on the South Coast AQMD (SCAQMD) 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that forecasts attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of both the federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA). The Project use is assumed by the forecast that aims to bring the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into attainment for all criteria pollutants, as it supports the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the SCAQMD recommends that any given project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project-specific impacts. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the air basin is in nonattainment. The incremental effect of the Project would not be considered to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. Although the Project would contribute particulate matter (PM) and ozone (O3) precursors to the area during construction and operation, the Project emissions would be less than the emissions from the existing baseline condition, and the emissions during Project construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or localized thresholds. Thus, the Project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and Project emissions would not be potentially cumulatively considerable.

As shown in Table 2-10 on page 42 of the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment of the Draft EIR, the Project Operational Cancer Risk is 1.02 in one million, which is under the health risk threshold of 3 in one million. A Health Risk Assessment for Project operations was prepared consistent with all SCAQMD guidelines currently in place. In addition, an analysis of the Project was conducted using the SCAQMD’s proposed Conceptual/Potential Cumulative Health Risk Assessment protocols and thresholds, which further validates that the EIR’s determination that the Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to air toxics and health risk would be less than significant.

Based on SCAQMD issued methodology, a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts is assessed using the same significance criteria as the criteria for project-specific impacts. That significance criterion considers the cumulative conditions of the SCAB and the more localized source receptor areas. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the air basin is in nonattainment and therefore would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.

In the case of the Project, the City, as the lead agency for the Project, conducted a project-specific air quality analysis (see Section 5.1, Air Quality, of the DEIR) consistent with SCAQMD’s methodology and construction noise analysis. As determined in Sections 5.1, Air Quality, and 5.5, Noise, the Project’s air quality and noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting, of the Final EIR includes a list of related development projects and a list of projects located east of State Route 57 that have been approved and/or constructed in the last 15 years. The air quality and noise analyses, and conclusions in the EIR consider the full cumulative scenario, including all related projects and the cumulative air quality conditions.

In the EIR, the Project construction noise is compared to the regulation-exempted hours of construction established by the City as well as the FTA’s construction-related noise level standard. The construction noise analysis in the EIR was conducted using a worst-case scenario approach, which assumes that all construction equipment operates simultaneously at the highest usage percentage. The center-of-site assumption used is a reasonable and conservative industry standard for construction projects lacking detailed equipment phasing data. The use of usage factors less than 100 percent is not only appropriate but required by the design of the Roadway Construction Noise Model and reflects actual equipment behavior. The construction noise analysis adhered to accepted best practices in environmental noise modeling. The methodology applied is appropriate for CEQA-level environmental review and consistent with standard noise modeling procedures used across California. As determined in Section 5.5, Noise, of the EIR, the Project’s construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR includes a list of related development projects, including the Brea 265 Specific Plan, that are within the vicinity of the Project Site for inclusion in the cumulative impact analysis for the EIR. The noise analysis and conclusions in this EIR consider the complete cumulative scenario, including all related projects and the cumulative noise conditions.

As such, the EIR adequately disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated the Project’s cumulative impacts. For reference, the City’s response to cumulative impacts related to air emissions analysis can be found in the Final EIR Section 2.3, Individual Responses to Comments - RTC No. 17-26.

As demonstrated above, the appeals do not present new evidence not already adequately considered in the body of evidence presented at the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Appellants does not provide substantial evidence that the Project and its procedures are not in compliance with the guidelines outlined in CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The City, as the lead agency, with the assistance of Michael Baker International Inc. (MBI), prepared an EIR in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the environmental regulations of the City. The EIR is the highest level of environmental review under CEQA.

The Draft EIR determined that no topics analyzed resulted in significant and unavoidable impacts. After the public comment period for the Draft EIR concluded, the Final EIR was prepared pursuant to Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which contains a response to agency and public comments made on the Draft EIR and a summary of revisions to the Draft EIR resulting from comments. Along with the Final EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared, which memorializes the proposed mitigation measures, along with the Findings of Fact (FOF), which provides conclusions and findings required by the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP and the CEQA FOF are provided as Attachments O and P, respectively. On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 2025-14 certifying the Final EIR for the Project and adopting the CEQA FOF and the MMRP.

The Final EIR can be accessed on the following link
(https://www.cityofbrea.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17864/DJT4-Parcel-Delivery-Facility-Final-EIR-), and all other environmental documents, including the NOP, NOA, and the Draft EIR can be accessed on the following link:
https://www.cityofbrea.gov/166/Projects-in-Process.

As detailed in the Analysis section of this report, the Project’s potential impacts were adequately evaluated in the EIR. The Appellant’s concerns were adequately acknowledged and evaluated in the Final EIR’s RTC and are further addressed in this staff report. In addition, the evidence presented by the Appellants does not constitute new information or substantial changes to the Project as outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which would require a subsequent EIR. As such, no revisions to the EIR are necessary, and the preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve Resolution Nos. PC 2025-14, 2025-15, and 2025-16, certifying the EIR and approving all associated entitlements for the Project. In doing so, in consideration of the concerns expressed by the residents of La Floresta residential community, the Planning Commission directed staff to communicate with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to consider a potential signal timing adjustment at the Valencia Avenue and Nasa Street/La Floresta Drive traffic signals during late evening and early morning hours to minimize line-haul truck idling on Valencia Avenue turning west onto Nasa Street, and to assess Valencia Avenue paving conditions and road improvements.

It should be noted that subsequent to the May 13, 2025 Planning Commission approval of the Project, the City Engineer has initiated and is currently in communications with Caltrans regarding the potential Valencia Avenue improvements, as directed by the Planning Commission.

The draft meeting minutes of the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment K.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
The Project was noticed in accordance with the City’s public noticing requirements, which involved mailed notices sent to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site, and publication in the Brea Star-Progress. Mailing notices were also sent to occupants within 500 feet of the Project, responsible agencies, and interested parties.

The public hearing notice for the Project is provided as Attachment Q.

As of the publication of this report, six public comments were received: one letter from the Applicant team addressing the appeal concerns, four letters commending the Project and positive impact on the community, and two letters citing concerns about Project proximity to residential properties, adverse health effects on residents, traffic & safety concerns, and inconsistent land use. The public comments received are included as Attachment R.

FISCAL IMPACT/SUMMARY
There are no requests for financial assistance or fee waivers associated with the construction of the Project.

Therefore, the Project would not have a negative impact on the City’s General Fund.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, as well as the information attached to this report, the Project would conform with all the applicable requirements of the General Plan, state law, and the provisions of the BCC. Moreover, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on the public, health, safety, or general welfare. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the appeals and approval of the Project.

Attachments
Attachment A. Draft Resolution Denyng Appeal of PC's Decision to Certify EIR No. 2023-01.pdf Attachment B. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal of PC's Decision to Approve PR No. 2022-09.pdf Attachment C. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal of PCs Decision to Approve TPM No. 2022-193.pdf Attachment D. Exhibit A- Draft Conditions of Approval.pdf Attachment E. November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Report.pdf Attachment F. November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes.pdf Attachment G. Resolution No. PC 2025-14 (EIR No. 2023-01).pdf Attachment H. Resolution No. PC 2025-15 (PR No. 2022-09).pdf Attachment I. Resolution No. PC 2025-16 (TPM No. 2022-193).pdf Attachment J-1. May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Report (1-69).pdf Attachment J-2. May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Report (70-110).pdf Attachment J-3. May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Report (111-119).pdf Attachment J-4. May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Report (120-282).pdf Attachment K. May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.pdf Attachment L. David Maxey Appeal.pdf
Attachment M. CARE CA Appeal.pdf
Attachment N-1. Project Plans (1-16).pdf
Attachment N-2. Project Plans (17-31).pdf
Attachment N-3. Project Plans (32-38).pdf
Attachment N-4. Project Plans (39-65).pdf
Attachment O. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.pdf Attachment P. Findings of Fact.pdf
Attachment Q. Notice of Public Hearing.pdf

ATTACHMENT A
(DRAFT) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA DENYING

APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND CERTIFYING A

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DJT4 PARCEL
DELIVERY FACILITY PROJECT LOCATED AT 275 VALENCIA AVENUE A. RECITALS:
(i) The City of Brea received and application for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, which includes Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2023-01, Plan Review (PR) No. 2022-09, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-193, to allow the demolition of a 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas and the construction of a new industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery building (collectively, the “Project”) for that certain real property located at 275 Valencia Avenue, in the City of Brea, and further legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 320-233-17, 320-301-11, and 320-301- 12, as shown in the latest records of the County of Orange Assessor’s Office. (ii) The Project applicant is Ware Malcomb, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618. (iii) The Project site is a 31.6-acre property that is situated west of Valencia Avenue, north of Nasa Street, and west of Surveyor Avenue. The Project site has two General Plan Land use and zoning designations. The northern approximately 24.2-acre portion has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-1). The southern approximately 7.4-acre portion has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II and a zoning designation of MixedUse II (MU-II).

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
(iv) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241) to analyze the environmental effects of the Project, which includes a Draft EIR and a Final EIR that includes public comments on the Draft EIR. The City’s responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR merely clarified, amplified, or made insignificant modifications to the document and did not change it in any way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. In addition, pursuant to Sections 15091 of the CEQA guidelines and Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact (FOF) regarding the Final EIR (CEQA Findings) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. (v) On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented, and adopted Resolution Nos. PC 2025-14, 2025-15, and 2025-16, approving all project entitlements associated with the Project, and also certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA FOF and MMRP.
(vi) Subsequent to the May 13, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing, three separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision of the above-reference actions were filed in a timely manner as dictated by the law, as follows:
1) The first appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 16, 2025, is David Maxey, 3363 Calle del Sol, Brea, CA 92823.

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
2) The second appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 22, 2025, is Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA 94612. SAFER withdrew its appeal on July 29, 2025.
3) The third appellant for the action referenced above, filed on March 22, 2025, is Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) c/o Aidan P.

Marshall, 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000, South San Francisco, CA 94080. (vii) The above-mentioned first and third appellants are referred to herein as the “Appellants.”
(viii) On August 19, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented prior to the adoption of this Resolution.
(ix) The documents and other material that constitute the record of the proceedings concerning the Project upon which this Resolution is based are kept by the City of Brea Community Development Department, located at 1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, California 92821.
(x) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. RESOLUTION:

Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Brea does find, determine, and resolve as follows:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
SECTION 1. All facts set forth above in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Based on the facts set forth above and the entirety of the evidence presented at the above-referenced public hearing, including all written evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, and the independent judgment of the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies as follows:
a. The EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. b. The EIR for the Project was presented to the City Council and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to deciding whether to approve the Project.
c. The EIR for the Project reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
d. Reasons for appeal provided by the Appellants were already acknowledged and adequately responded to by the City, based on technical studies and reports, which are included in Section 2.0 — Response to Comments in the Final EIR, and the evidence presented by the Appellants does not constitute new information or substantial changes to the Project that would require a subsequent EIR as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Nor are there substantial changes in circumstances that would require a subsequent EIR as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As such, findings specified in the Planning Commission's staff report, presentation, and Resolution No. PC Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
2025-14 are deemed valid, and therefore, no revisions to the EIR are necessary, and the preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR or subsequent EIR is not required. e. The Planning Commission’s decision to certify the EIR was not made in error, the Planning Commission’s decision to certify the EIR was not an abuse of discretion, and the Planning Commission’s decision to certify the EIR was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

SECTION 3. The City Council denies the appeals, approves and adopts the CEQA FOF found in Exhibit A, and approves and adopts the MMRP found in Exhibit B, which Exhibits are hereby incorporated as though set forth in full. All mitigation measures described in the MMRP shall be binding upon the Project and the persons assigned therein to implement such measures.

SECTION 4. City staff is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination regarding the Final EIR with the County of Orange within five working days of the final Project approval.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 19th day of August 2025.

Blair Stewart, Mayor
I, Victoria Popescu, City Clerk of the City of Brea, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea held on the 19th day of August 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Victoria Popescu, City Clerk
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.

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. 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
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

ATTACHMENT B
(DRAFT) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA DENYING APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVING PLAN REVIEW NO. 2022-09 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE DJT4 PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY PROJECT LOCATED AT 275 VALENCIA AVENUE
A. RECITALS:
(i) The City of Brea received an application for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, which includes Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2023-01, Plan Review (PR) No. 2022-09, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-193, to allow the demolition of a 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas and the construction of a new industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery building (collectively, the “Project”) for that certain real property located at 275 Valencia Avenue, in the City of Brea, and further legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 320-233-17, 320-301-11, and 320-301- 12, as shown in the latest records of the County of Orange Assessor’s Office. (ii) The Project applicant is Ware Malcomb, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618. (iii) The Project site is a 31.6-acre property that is situated west of Valencia Avenue, north of Nasa Street, and west of Surveyor Avenue. The Project site has two General Plan land use and zoning designations. The northern approximately 24.2-acre portion has a General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-1). The southern approximately 7.4-acre portion has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II and a zoning designation of MixedUse II (MU-II). (iv) PR No. 2022-09 would allow demolition of an existing 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape area, and the construction of Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
an industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility, including surface parking and associated landscape areas. (v) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241) to analyze the environmental effects of the Project, which includes a Draft EIR and a Final EIR that includes public comments on the Draft EIR. The City’s responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR merely clarified, amplified, or made insignificant modifications to the document and did not change it in any way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. In addition, pursuant to Sections 15091 of the CEQA guidelines and Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact (FOF) regarding the Final EIR (CEQA Findings) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. (vi) On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented, and adopted Resolution Nos. PC 2025-14, 2025-15, and 2025-16, approving all project entitlements associated with the Project, and also certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA FOF and the MMRP.
(vii) Subsequent to the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission public hearing, three separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision of the above-referenced actions were filed in a timely manner as dictated by the law, as follows:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
1) The first appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 16, 2025, is David Maxey, 3363 Calle del Sol, Brea, CA 92823. 2) The second appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 22, 2025, is Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA 94612. SAFER withdrew its appeal on July 29, 2025.
3) The third appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 22, 2025, is Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) c/o Aidan P. Marshall, 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000, South San Francisco, CA 94080. (viii) The above-mentioned first and third appellants are referred to herein as the “Appellants.”
(ix) On August 19, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented prior to the adoption of this Resolution.
(x) The documents and other material that constitute the record of the proceedings concerning the Project upon which this Resolution is based are kept by the City of Brea Community Development Department, located at 1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, California 92821.
(xi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. RESOLUTION:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Brea does find, determine, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. All facts set forth above in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. This Council hereby makes the following findings in regards to approving PR No. 2022-09:
a. Finding: That the Project is in conformity with applicable provisions of Brea City Code and all requirements of law.

Fact: The Project building, a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery building, would be located entirely within the M-1 zone. Surface parking and drive aisles would be established within both the M-1 and MU-II zoned portions of the Project site. The Project building is designed and sited to be consistent with the M1 development standards, including, but not limited to, minimum setback and parking requirements, and the maximum height, lot coverage, and floor area ratio standards. The Project building is designed with natural colors and quality materials that are compatible with properties in the nearby vicinity, and it includes substantial landscaping materials to provide screening of the proposed building and loading areas. The Project is designed with sufficient parking and landscaping consistent with the requirements of the underlying M-1 and MU-II zoning regulations. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives, policies, regulations, and guidelines in the General Plan. Specifically, the characteristics of the Light Industrial land use designation include low intensity warehousing, and Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
Policy CD-1.4, to ensure that the City maintains a balance among residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.

SECTION 3. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project, and the appeals, finds and determines that the Planning Commission’s decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission’s decision was not an abuse of discretion, and that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the appeals and approves PR No. 2022-09, subject to the conditions of approval found in Exhibit A of this resolution and the requirements of the MMRP, as included in a separate Resolution certifying the EIR for the Project.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 19th day of August 2025.

Blair Stewart, Mayor
I, Victoria Popescu, City Clerk of the City of Brea, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea held on the 19th day of August 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Victoria Popescu, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT C
(DRAFT) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREA DENYING

APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2022-193 FOR THE DJT4 PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY PROJECT LOCATED AT 275 VALENCIA AVENUE A. RECITALS:
(i) The City of Brea received an application for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project, which includes Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 2023-01, Plan Review (PR) No. 2022-09, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022-193, to allow the demolition of a 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas and the construction of a new industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery building (collectively, the “Project”) for that certain real property located at 275 Valencia Avenue, in the City of Brea, and further legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 320-233-17, 320-301-11, and 320-301- 12, as shown in the latest records of the County of Orange Assessor’s Office. (ii) The Project applicant is Ware Malcomb, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618. (iii) The Project site is a 31.6-acre property that is situated west of Valencia Avenue, north of Nasa Street, and west of Surveyor Avenue. The Project site has two General Plan Land Use and zoning designations. The northern approximately 24.2-acre portion has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Industrial (M-1). The southern approximately 7.4-acre portion has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II and a zoning designation of MixedUse II (MU-II). (iv) TPM No. 2022-193 would reconfigure and merge three existing lots into one lot to accommodate the Project.

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
(v) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023070241) to analyze the environmental effects of the Project, which includes a Draft EIR and a Final EIR that includes public comments on the Draft EIR. The City’s responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR merely clarified, amplified, or made insignificant modifications to the document and did not change it in any way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. In addition, pursuant to Sections 15091 of the CEQA guidelines and Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact (FOF) regarding the Final EIR (CEQA Findings) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. (vi) On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented, and adopted Resolution Nos. PC 2025-14, 2025-15, and 2025-16, approving all project entitlements associated with the Project, and also certifying the Final EIR and adopting the CEQA FOF and the MMRP.
(vii) Subsequent to the May 13, 2025, Planning Commission public hearing, three separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision in the above-referenced action were filed in a timely manner as dictated by the law, as follows:
1) The first appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 16, 2025, is David Maxey, 3363 Calle del Sol, Brea, CA 92823.

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
2) The second appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 22, 2025, is Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA 94612. SAFER withdrew its appeal on July 29, 2025.
3) The third appellant for the action referenced above, filed on May 22, 2025, is Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) c/o Aidan P. Marshall, 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000, South San Francisco, CA 94080. (viii) The above-mentioned first and third appellants are referred to herein as the “Appellants.”
(ix) On August 19, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, during which it received and considered all evidence and testimony presented prior to the adoption of this Resolution.
(x) The documents and other material that constitute the record of the proceedings concerning the Project upon which this Resolution is based are kept by the City of Brea Community Development Department, located at 1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, California 92821.
(xi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. RESOLUTION:

Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Brea does find, determine, and resolve as follows:

Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
SECTION 1. All facts set forth above in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. This Council hereby makes the following findings in regards to approving ton No. 2022-193:
a. Finding: The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General Plan and specific plans.

Fact: The Project site has two General Plan land use and zoning designations. The northern approximately 24.2-acre portion of the Project site that contains the facility building has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of M-1. The southern approximately 7.4- acre portion of the Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use II and a zoning designation of MU-II. The proposed merger of existing lots and the Project will maintain the site’s General Plan land use and Zoning designations and comply with all standards of the applicable zoning designations. b. Finding: The design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

Fact: The proposed vesting tentative parcel map would
merge three existing lots within the Project site into one lot to accommodate construction of a single-story, 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility, including associated surface parking and landscape areas. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives, policies, regulations, and guidelines in the General Plan. Specifically, the Project is consistent with Policies CD-1.4, to ensure that the City maintains a balance among residential, commercial, and industrial Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
land uses, and CD-1.6, to accommodate a broad range of business uses that provide employment at all income levels and that make a positive contribution to the City’s tax base. The proposed subdivision will broaden the range of business uses in the area that provide employment by replacing an obsolete office use with a light industrial use that provides a range of employment opportunities.

Additionally, the Project is consistent with Policy CR-7.1, through the development of a walking and bike trail that provides direct pedestrian access between workplaces and residential neighborhoods. The Project would extend The Tracks at Brea to connect the existing gap in the trail loop along the Nasa Street frontage. c. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

Fact: The Project site is 31.6 acres in size and occupied by an existing 637,503 square-foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas. The map would merge the existing lots within the Project site into one lot to accommodate construction of a single-story, 181,500 square-foot parcel delivery facility, including associated surface parking and landscape areas. The Project site is physically suitable to accommodate the industrial development as the Project complies with the development standards established for the M-1 and MU-II zoning designations.
d. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

Fact: The Project would redevelop and reconfigure the
Project site into one parcel, and the new parcel would be in compliance with Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
applicable development standards. The proposed building would be entirely in the Light Industrial land use Designation that allows for a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75.

The Project proposes a FAR of 0.14, consistent with the maximum density permitted, and would result in a lower density than the existing office building proposed to be demolished on the Project site. As such, the Project site would be physically suitable for the proposed density of development in the Light Industrial land use designation.
e. Finding: The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially unavoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat.

Fact: The design of TPM No. 2022-193 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially unavoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. The existing parcels have been previously disturbed and developed with an existing three-story office building and is surrounded by office and light industrial land uses. The site is not suitable habitat for wildlife and the proposed Project would, therefore, not cause substantial environmental damage or injure wildlife. This is consistent with the findings of the EIR prepared for the Project.
f. Finding: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

Fact: The design of TPM No. 2022-193 is not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the merger and improvements would be required to comply with the approved plans and development standards as Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
required by the City. The Project would be required to comply with Brea City Code and all applicable codes, including California Building and Fire Codes. Additionally, the Project would improve a bike and walkway path along Nasa Street Project frontage by extending The Tracks at Brea along Nasa Street to the intersection of Valencia Avenue and Nasa Street. Therefore, with the implementation of the conditions of approval attached to a separate resolution approving PR No. 2022- 09 and the mitigation measures found in the MMRP, as included in a separate resolution certifying the EIR for the Project, the subdivision would not cause a change or impact public health.
g. Finding: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Fact: All necessary easements would be updated in order to accommodate parcel access and utilities for the Project site. All easements will be shown and recorded on the final map.

SECTION 3. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project, and the appeals, finds and determines that the Planning Commission’s decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission’s decision was not an abuse of discretion, and that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

SECTION 4. The City Council denies the appeals and approves TPM No. 2022- 193, subject to the conditions of approval attached to a separate resolution approving PR Resolution No. 2025-xx

Appellants: David Maxey, CARE CA
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility
No. 2022-09 and the requirements of the MMRP, as included in a separate resolution certifying the EIR for the Project.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 19th day of August 2025.

Blair Stewart, Mayor
I, Victoria Popescu, City Clerk of the City of Brea, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea held on the 19th day of August 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Victoria Popescu, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT D

EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
Environmental Impact Report No. 2023-01,
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-193
Plan Review No. 2022-09

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division – Community Development Department

1. Development and operations shall occur in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2025 and upheld by City Council on August 19, 2025, which include a project description, site plan, floor plans, conceptual architectural elevations and associated details, conceptual landscape plan, and operational characteristics (e.g. parking management, traffic circulations, etc.), on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein and all applicable Federal, State, County and local regulations. The City Planner may approve minor modifications to the approved Project plans.

2. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a physical copy (suitable for archival storage) of the final plans and technical studies to the Brea Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development.

3. Prior to issuance of building permits and prior to and during construction, the Applicant shall adhere to all measures described in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program listed in the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program shall be in effect throughout all construction-related activities as indicated in the report.

4. Prior to the final issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating the completion of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for review and approval of the City Planner.

5. Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, submit a demolition and construction phasing/management plan that shows the method of demolition, construction phasing, equipment storage, parking and truck hauling routes for review and approval of all applicable City departments.

6. Final architectural elevation plans and details shall be provided at the time of plan check for the review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Architecture and design features shall be consistent with the specifications and details provided in the approved Project plans and shall include high-quality materials and finishes. Requests to modify the approved building

elevations, materials and details, colors, and other architectural elevation features may be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.

7. Final details regarding all window glazing and potentially reflective building surfaces shall be provided for the review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such glazing and surfacing shall be treated or designed in a manner to reduce glare impacts to adjacent uses, motorists, pedestrians and wildlife (e.g. to reduce bird window strikes).

8. All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building.

9. No exterior downspouts shall be permitted along the walls of the facility building.

All roof drainage shall utilize interior piping and may have exterior outlets into landscaped areas at the base of the building. Any roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so overflow drainage will not stain the walls.

10.Any necessary vent risers or pipes shall be integrated in the facility building walls.

11.Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the City Planner:
a. The final landscaping plan shall substantially conform to the conceptual landscape plan on file and comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements.
b. Details shall include the quantity, size, species type, and placement of final trees, shrubs, and ground covers for the Project. The amount and types of trees, shrubs, and ground covers provided for screening purposes shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape plans and provide sufficient screening, as determined by the City Planner. c. All trees, shrubs, and ground covers shall be consistent with the Brea Fire Department Fuel Modification Guideline approved plant list and not on the CAL-IPC inventory of plants that threaten California's natural areas. d. Such plans shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable landscaping requirements for the relevant zone.
e. Final landscape plans shall show details for any decorative paving, hardscape, outdoor furniture, and associated features.
f. Final landscape plans shall show all ground utility equipment, and such equipment shall be properly screened by landscaping, paint, and/or screening materials or a combination thereof to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.

12.All tree removals shall comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Brea City Code (BCC) Chapter 20.74. Prior to removal, tree species type and diameter information shall be identified on future demolition permit plans.

13.Pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (US Code, Title 16, Sections 703–712), birds and their active nests are protected; therefore, the Applicant is encouraged to schedule the removal of on-site trees outside of the nesting season, either prior to February 15 or after August 15.

However, if construction or other Project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird and raptor season, a pre-construction nesting bird and raptor survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist no more than three days prior to demolition and/or grading activities that involve tree and vegetation removal, to ensure that active bird nests will not be disturbed or destroyed. If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized non-disturbance buffer around the nest using flagging or staking.

Construction activities shall not occur within any non-disturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist.

14.Prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy issuance, all new landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in conformance with the approved plans and applicable BCC. All landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity and be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, and/or dead.

15.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit photometric plans for review and approval by the Building Official and City Planner. Such plans shall show the location of all exterior lights, a measurement of light throughout the site, and include cut/specifications sheets for proposed lighting equipment.

16.All roof-mounted and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from public views at ground elevation. Noise-generating equipment shall require special consideration in location and screening to avoid creating a nuisance. All uses and operations shall adhere to the City’s noise ordinance.

17.Prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall incorporate renewable energy systems/technologies within the Project Site, including, but not limited to solar panels, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.

18.Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for review and approval by the City Planner. The PMP shall detail management strategies to ensure a balance between parking and traffic circulation on-site. Strategies shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Enforcement of on-site parking and vehicle circulation management. b. Designated employee and delivery van parking areas.
c. Designated bicycle parking areas.
d. Specific line haul truck delivery times, loading, and unloading.

19.Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand Management requirements of BCC Section 20.08.050 (i.e. car/vanpool spaces, employee parking spaces,

bicycle parking and facilities, rideshare loading areas, bus stop improvements, transportation alternative information, etc.).

20.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.

21.Operation of the Project shall not result in stacking of vehicles in such a manner that will result in obstruction to any access aisle or parking spaces of on-site main drive aisles or public streets. If the operation of the Project affects traffic of on-site main drive aisles or the public street, design alternatives to remedy the issue, such as modifying the parking lot, loading area, or other alternatives, shall be presented to the City Engineer and City Planner for review and approval.

22.If/when available technology, company policy, and supply permits, the Applicant shall transition its line-haul truck and delivery van fleets to electric fleets.

23.The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to implement an alternative line-haul truck route if the City adopts an updated Truck Route Map to include an alternative truck route(s) that would make the removal of such truck traffic from Valencia Avenue feasible.

24.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign program application to the City for review and approval, as specified in BCC Chapter 20.28. The program shall include details such as maximum sign area, letter sizes, location, number of signs, lighting techniques, and associated details. It shall also include details on all on-site directional signage.

25.All outdoor trash facilities shall be shielded from view within a decorative enclosure with walls that are minimum six (6) feet in height, a solid roof, and gates. The design of enclosures shall be compatible with the building architecture and shall require a separate review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.

26.All new electrical, telephone, community antenna, television, and similar service wires or cables that provide direct service to the property being developed shall be installed underground within the exterior boundary lines of such property unless deemed infeasible by the City Planner.

27.All uses shall comply with the provisions of BCC Chapter 20.20, including, but not limited to, vibration, glare, emission of dust, smoke, and odors.

28.The Applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this Project within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for this Project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits.

29.Any permit is subject to expiration and revocation as provided in the BCC, and succ provisions are specifically made a part hereof without negating the applicability of any other provision of this resolution or any other law.

30.To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officers, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) from and against all causes of action, claims, costs, damages, demands, expenses (including fees of accountants, attorneys, and other professionals), judgments, liens, losses, penalties, and proceedings of any nature whatsoever arising out of or related to:
(i) the City’s California Environmental Quality Act review and environmental determination for this permit; (ii) the City’s approval of this permit; or (iii) the exercise of rights granted by this permit. In the event of a lawsuit, the Applicant shall execute a joint defense and indemnity agreement to satisfy these defense, indemnity, and hold harmless obligations. The joint defense and indemnity agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney, and shall require the Applicant to post and replenish a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the City in connection with defense of the lawsuit.

Building and Safety Division – Community Development Department

31.All designs shall comply with the Codes adopted at the time of permit submittal.

Currently, the 2022 CA Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Cal Green, Energy, Fire Codes, ISPSC, City of Brea Municipal Code, City of Brea & CA state ordinances. Any submittals received after December 31, 2025, shall be in compliance with Title 24, 2025 California Building Standard Codes & Local Amendments.

32.Building permits are required for all the proposed work (California Building Code (CBC) 2022 Sec [A]105.1. Please note the following upon formal submittal:
a. At the time of building permit submittal, the required construction documents include: Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Energy, Plumbing, Civil (Grading, Erosion Control), Landscaping, Structural Calculations, Energy Calculations, MEP-related Calculations & Equipment Cut Sheets, and Specs.

The following requires a separate submission and permit issuance:
i. Demolition construction documents (Demolition Permits)

ii. Building construction documents (Building Permit)
iii. Civil construction documents (Grading Permit)
iv. Landscape construction documents (Landscape Permit) v. Accessory structures (i.e. trash enclosures, pump house) construction documents (MISC. Permit)
vi. Fire Sprinklers (Fire Department Permit)
vii. Methane Mitigation construction documents (Fire Department Permit)
viii. PV Systems & ESS System (Building Permit)
ix. Construction Trailers (Temporary Permit)
x. Temporary Power (Temporary Power Pole Permit)
xi. Underground Storage Tanks (Building Permit)
b. The planning entitlement conditions of approval and the geotechnical investigation report recommendations shall be pasted on all plan submittals. c. Provide a digital file for all structural calculations generated on Excel spreadsheets.
d. The construction documents shall be bookmarked and hyperlinked. e. Construction plans shall indicate on the plans whether or not the Project Site is within any of the following zones:
i. Methane zone
ii. Fire zone
iii. Flood zone
iv. Liquefaction zone
f. Any code deviations will require submittal of Alternative Materials, Design and Methods (CBC Sec. [A]104.11) or Code Modification request (CBC Sec. [A]104.10).

33.Upon formal submittal to the Building & Safety Division, clearly show the proposed location for a potential temporary generator to be used during emergencies on the

plans. The utilities hook-ups shall be pre-installed and adjacent to the proposed generator’s location, and those shall be clearly shown on the MEP plans.

34.Temporary structures (i.e. construction trailers and power poles) require a building permit, and such permit would be valid for 180 days.

35.Deferred submittal items shall have the prior approval of the building official. The Applicant shall discuss with the building official whether or not the proposed deferred submittals will be allowed to be deferred. Deferred submittal items shall not be installed until the deferred submittal documents have been approved by the building official (CBC Sec [A] 107.3.4.1).

36.Upon formal submittal of building permits to the Building & Safety Division, the Applicant shall submit a photometric plan showing exterior illumination to be not less than 1 foot-candle at the walking floor surface along the accessible route and path of travel components.

37.Prior to permit issuance and the start of any demolition of the existing building(s) and structure(s), an asbestos and lead analysis report shall be submitted for review to the Building and Safety Division. If asbestos and/or lead are found to be present, then the asbestos and/or lead shall be properly removed and disposed of prior to starting the demolition work.

38.Upon formal building and grading permit submittals to the Building & Safety Division, a Geotechnical Soils Investigation Report shall be provided.

39.During construction, the grading inspections shall be performed by the geotechnical engineer of record (GEOR). If the geotechnical engineer of record is replaced, the new licensed geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s geotechnical report, grading plans and foundation plans and details, evaluate the geotechnical recommendations in the original report, provide supplemental recommendations, as necessary, and formally accept full responsibility as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR) for the Project in a formal letter. The letter shall provide concurrence or modifications with recommendations in the original report and conformance of the grading and structural plans to the geotechnical report. The documents described above shall be submitted to the City of Brea Building & Safety Division for review and approval.

40.A licensed civil or structural engineer registered in the State of California shall provide a letter stating whether or not a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Sec. 11.4.8 (Section 21.2) for this development. If a ground motion hazard analysis is recommended to be performed, then the geotechnical engineer shall update the preliminary geotechnical investigation accordingly. ASCE 7-16 Sec 11.4.8 Exception #2 used by the geotechnical engineer shall be justified by the structural engineer.

41.The geotechnical soils investigation report shall include recommendations to mitigate the effects of expansive soil.

42.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Brea Building & Safety Division that a geotechnical engineer has been retained to monitor the grading operation and assure implementation of the site grading recommendations. All recommendations shall be implemented to the performance standards specified in the Soil Investigation report and to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, City Engineer, and Building Official.

43.The geotechnical engineer of record shall review the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details for conformance with the Geotechnical Investigation Report, and stamp and sign plans and details.

44.Upon formal grading plan submittal to the Building & Safety Division, a color exhibit plan showing cut and fill areas shall be provided on the civil plans.

45.Upon formal grading plan submittal to the Building & Safety Division, a transverse and longitudinal overexcavation section cuts shall be provided on the civil drawings. The sections shall clearly show the extents of overexcavation as recommended on the geotechnical report.

46.The property center/west side appears to be in a flood zone. If the Project Site is within a Flood Hazard Area, the Project’s civil engineer shall ensure the Project meets or exceeds the requirements as set forth on CBC2022 Sec 1603.1.7.

47.Upon completion of grading, the general contractor shall provide soils laboratory testing results to evaluate the as-graded soil corrosivity characteristics. The soil’s testing shall be done by a licensed corrosion engineer.

48.Any underground storage tanks (UST) shall be removed from the site, and the evacuated UST void shall be properly backfilled, and any utilities properly capped.

Upon formal plan submittal, the Applicant shall provide construction documents for UST removal and Orange County Health Care Agency approval. This requires a separate submittal and approval from the Brea Fire Department and Building & Safety Division.

49. A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a UST removal permit. Refer to the Geosyntec Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Letter Report dated 07/12/2024 for specific requirements.

50.Prior to the Project’s final building permit inspection, a building height certificate shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer registered in the state of California and submitted to the Building & Safety for review.

51.Prior to the Project’s Building & Safety Division final inspection, a CASp report shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division for review. Such report shall identify any project deficiencies, and it shall provide recommendations for the owner to resolve all deficiencies.

52.Separate water meter(s) for the landscaping shall be provided. Upon formal submittal to the Building & Safety Division, clearly identify the meter(s) location on the utility plans and the landscape plans.

53.All Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing equipment, interior or exterior, heavier than 300 pounds, must provide anchorage calculations, details, and the details shall be referenced on plans.

54.Prior to final building inspection, the Applicant shall complete all required work associated with the Electric Vehicle (EV) parking stalls (i.e. striping/marking, charging stations, infrastructure, signage) as required by the CalGreen and the CBC codes.

55.Notwithstanding Condition No. 17 above, any photovaltaic (PV) and battery energy storage systems (BESS) required pursuant to California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
a. In order to qualify to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), the Applicant shall submit Title 24 energy calculations, construction documents, and obtain the PV and BESS permit approval prior to issuance of the TCO, which demonstrate that larger PV & BESS systems than would otherwise be required by the California Energy Code are designed and will be installed prior to issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy.

56.Prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy issuance, all outstanding fees on the project shall be paid.

57.Full project review shall be conducted when complete construction documents are submitted to the Building & Safety division.

58.Additional requirements may be imposed when the project is submitted for building & safety department plan check review and approval.

Public Works Department

59.This approval shall be contingent upon the approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and the conditions of such approval shall be implemented. The proposed subdivision shall occur in substantial conformance with Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-193, as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2025 and upheld by City Council on August 19, 2025, and all conditions set forth herein.

60.The proposed subdivision shall occur in substantial conformance with Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-193, with the plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2025 and upheld by City Council on August 19, 2025, and all conditions of such approval shall be implemented and incorporated.

61.The Applicant shall provide Site and Building Demolition Plans for the demolition of the existing site and building infrastructure. The Site and Building Demolition Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, be in accordance with City of Brea Standard Plans and standards, and be to the satisfaction of the Building & Safety Division and the City Engineer. Such plans shall identify and include the salvaging of up to twenty existing recently planted trees to the satisfaction of the Public Works Superintendent. Such plans shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan identifying the State issued WDID number and the contact information for the person that is to be reached in case of emergency. The Applicant shall obtain approval of the Site and Building Demolition Plans, prior to the issuance of any building permit for any proposed development phase.

62.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed developed site conditions, the Applicant shall salvage and box twenty existing recently planted trees, and deliver them to the Brea Sports Park to the satisfaction of the Public Works Superintendent. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Superintendent prior to the proposed operations and delivery.

63.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed developed site conditions, the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval for the Precise Grading Plans and all applicable technical studies. The Precise Grading Plans and technical studies shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, be in accordance with City of Brea Standard Plans and standards, and be to the satisfaction of the Building & Safety Division and the City Engineer. The Precise Grading Plan submittal shall include the following items:
a. Construction Document Plans for the review and approval of the Building & Safety Division and the City Engineer. The Construction Document Plans shall identify all improvements required to facilitate the proposed development and associated infrastructure improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such Construction Document Plans shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan identifying the State issued WDID number and the contact information for the person that is to be reached in case of emergency;
b. Soils Report for the review and approval of the Building & Safety Division and the City Engineer;

c. Final Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis for the review and approval of the City Engineer;
d. Final Hydrology & Hydraulic Study for the review and approval of the City Engineer. Said study shall meet all City and Orange County requirements; e. Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The Applicant and any future successors, shall adhere to the approved Final WQMP during the life of the Project; f. Final Water Demand Analysis for the review and approval of the City Engineer;
g. Solid Waste/Trash Collection Circulation Plan for the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer;
h. On-site Circulation Plan as requested for the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer.

64.The Applicant shall maintain the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan during construction in accordance with NPDES guidelines, which shall incorporate all best management practices to mitigate pollutant runoff during construction.

65.The Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and associated infrastructure located on public or private property.

66.The Applicant shall maintain all public and private drainage facilities in good working order at all times.

67.The Applicant shall be responsible to obtain the permission to perform any work on adjacent private properties or within easement areas.

68.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed development, the Applicant shall provide verification to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that all parties that have easements over the property, including the Orange County Flood Control District, Metropolitan Water District, and all dry utility purveyors, have granted authorization to construct the proposed improvements within existing easement areas or that all existing easements have been modified, removed, and/or quitclaimed to accommodate the proposed development.

69.All improvements associated with the proposed development that are located and/or impacting facilities located within easement areas within the property, including easements granted to Orange County Flood Control District, Metropolitan Water District, and all dry utility purveyors, shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the easement holders and meet all associated local jurisdictional requirements.

70.No proposed trees, structures for private utility infrastructure, lighting structures, utility vaults or cabinets; structures or walls with footing or foundation elements; building foundations, structural slabs, or building structural members; shall be located within adjacent properties, within existing or proposed public easement areas, or within the public right-of-way.

71.All existing domestic and irrigation water services are to be replaced with new service connections. All existing domestic and irrigation water services are to be removed through the existing water main to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

72.All water and fire services shall be per the latest City of Brea Public Works Standards. All proposed domestic, irrigation, and fire services shall include metering and above-grade backflow prevention to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Brea Fire Department.

73.The Applicant shall install all water meters, vaults, fire hydrants, FDC’s, and above ground backflow prevention devices for all domestic, irrigation, and fire services and systems, at locations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Building & Safety Division, and the Brea Fire Department. Easements shall be dedicated to the City for the maintenance, repair, and operation of all public water meters, vaults, and fire hydrants.

74.All proposed fire hydrant locations shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, the Building & Safety Division, and the Brea Fire Department.

Installation of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with City of Brea Public Works Standards and all applicable building codes.

75.All proposed sewer laterals and connections shall be per City of Brea Public Works Standards, and meet all City Building and Plumbing Code requirements, and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building & Safety Division.

76.The proposed development shall only be served by underground distribution utilities.

77.Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall pay all applicable impact fees and connection fees as set forth in the City ordinances and in effect at the time of permit approval.

78.Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a completed Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be submitted through Green Halo Systems by the Applicant and approved by the Public Works Department in compliance with Brea City Code Chapter 8.29.

79.Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how proposed trash enclosure will comply with current California Green Building

Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Section 5.410.1 and Brea City Code Chapter

15.24. Current trash enclosure details included in site plan are insufficient.

80.Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate on site plan how proposed trash enclosure will have enough space to accommodate a sufficient number of containers to comply with AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, and SB 1383 Short-lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions.

81.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed developed site conditions, the Applicant shall prepare Public Improvement Plans for the review and approval of the City Engineer, for all public improvements located within Surveyor Avenue, Nasa Street, and all proposed easements adjacent to both Surveyor Avenue and Nasa Street. The Public Improvement Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, be in accordance with City of Brea Standard Plans and standards, and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Prior to any building permit issuance for the proposed developed site conditions, the Public Improvement Plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. All improvements shall be constructed, including any field punch list items, prior to the issuance of any occupancy release. The public improvements include, but are not limited to, the following items:
a. All easement dedications and improvements required to facilitate a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk, a 3-foot buffer, and a minimum 10-foot wide bike trail/multi-purpose trail along the Nasa Street frontage from the northeast corner of Nasa Street & Surveyor Avenue to the northwest corner of the intersection of Nasa Street & Valencia Avenue. The proposed bike trail/multi-purpose trail shall include all improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
b. Removal of the existing curb ramp on Surveyor Avenue located across from the existing Tracks at Brea trail, and construction of curb and gutter to tie into and match the existing curb and gutter adjacent to the proposed improvements on Surveyor Avenue;
c. Removal of the existing staircase structure, and all associated above and below grade elements, located at the northeast corner or Nasa Street & Surveyor Avenue;
d. Removal of all existing parkway drains and/or curb drains serving the existing property, and reconstruction of curb and gutter to match the existing curb and gutter to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; e. Removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter within the public rightof-way of Surveyor Avenue and Nasa Street, immediately adjacent to the project site, at locations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

f. Removal and reconstruction of the existing driveway on Nasa Street, in accordance with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and City of Brea Public Works Standards;
g. All easement dedications and improvements required to facilitate the construction of a proposed curb ramp at the northeast corner of the intersection of Nasa Street & Surveyor Avenue. The proposed curb ramp improvements shall connect to both the existing and proposed Tracks at Brea bike trail/multi-purpose trail to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. h. All signage and striping improvements to Surveyor Avenue, Nasa Street, and the proposed bike trail/multi-purpose trail to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer;
i. Removal, replacement, and/or relocation of all existing infrastructure or structures interfering with the proposed improvements. This includes, but is not limited to, existing water meters, backflow prevention, utility vaults, utility meters, vent pipes, fire hydrants, signage, street lights, power poles, and paving.
j. All easement dedications and improvements required to facilitate the proposed utility improvements, modifications, and connections located within the public right-of-way. Proposed utility improvements, modifications, and connections located within the public right-of-way shall include items such as, but not limited to, the construction of domestic, irrigation, and fire water service connections and infrastructure; the construction of fire hydrants; the construction of storm drain connections to existing infrastructure; the construction of any required sanitary sewer service connections; the relocation of existing street lights; and the removal and/or relocation of utility vaults and/or meters.

82.The Applicant shall prepare Caltrans public improvement plans for all proposed improvements located within the public right-of-way of Valencia Avenue. The improvements shall include the construction of a curb ramp at the northwest corner of Valencia Avenue & Nasa street, the construction of concrete sidewalk along the full project Valencia Avenue frontage, the removal of three (3) existing driveways, the construction of two (2) proposed driveways, all construction, fiber optic communication, and traffic signal modification improvements to facilitate the removal of the existing project driveway and west leg of the intersection of Valencia Avenue & La Entrada Drive, all Integrated Crime Center (ICC) fiber optic communications and surveillance camera improvements, all center median island improvements within Valencia Avenue, the extension and all improvements to the existing bus stop/pad, all proposed utility modifications and/or improvements, and any other signage, striping, utility, paving, structure, or infrastructure

improvements on Valencia Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. Requirements to this condition are as follows:
a. Prior to Caltrans submittal, the Applicant shall submit the public improvement plans to the City Engineer for conformance review and approval.
b. Prior to any building permit issuance for the proposed developed site conditions, the Applicant shall submit a Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application, including the public improvement plans and any required supplemental information, for the review and approval by Caltrans. c. Prior to any occupancy release, all improvements including any field punch list items shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

83.All public improvements, and improvements within the public right-of-way and public easement areas, shall be designed and constructed per current City standards and all other jurisdictional requirements, and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

84.The Applicant shall enter into an Encroachment License Agreement with the City of Brea for all private or non-standard improvements, improvements not in accordance with City of Brea Standard Plans and standards, located within the public right-of-way.

85.All existing public utilities located within the public right-of-way or within existing easements are to be protected in place, unless indicated otherwise by improvement plans approved by the City Engineer.

86.A City of Brea Public Works Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any construction, improvements, or staging in the public right-of-way or within existing public easement areas.

87.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy release, the Applicant shall provide the City of Brea a financial contribution of $15,000 for the installation and repair of radar speed feedback signs within the City of Brea.

88.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy release, the Applicant shall provide the City of Brea a financial contribution of $250,000 to future paving improvements to Surveyor Avenue and Nasa Street, in lieu of the Applicant completing the required paving improvements.

89.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy release, the Applicant shall enter into an Easement Agreement with the City of Brea for the proposed bike trail/multipurpose trail that addresses items such as the maintenance responsibility for the proposed improvements located within the proposed public access easement.

Prior to the issuance of any occupancy release, the Easement Agreement shall be recorded at the County of Orange.

90.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed developed site conditions, the Applicant shall submit a Final Map for review and approval of the City Engineer. Such Final Map shall include all right-of-way and easement dedication and/or vacations. The Final Map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for conformance review prior to submittal to the County of Orange Surveyor’s Office. The Final Map shall be submitted directly to the County of Orange Surveyor’s Office for review and approval of the technical portion of the Final Map.

All public improvements shall be constructed, including any field punch list items, prior to Final Map approval by City Council and Final Map recordation with the County of Orange. All right-of-way and easement dedications and vacations shall be in accordance with all requirements set forth in the California Streets and Highways Code, the Subdivision Map Act, and the Brea City Code.

91.The Applicant shall complete the construction of all public improvements in the public right-of-way and within public easement or right-of-way dedication areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and guarantee the installation of these improvements by providing sufficient bonds or sureties for both Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials in a form approved by the City Attorney before the approval of the Final Map. All bonds or sureties shall be provided in an amount to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

92.Applicant shall be responsible to prepare all documentation and pay for any publication fee (if applicable) for the proposed dedications and/or vacations of right-of-way or easements.

93.The Applicant shall submit a Monumentation Bond as required by the Subdivision Map Act in a form approved by the City Attorney to guarantee payment for the setting of monuments. The bond amount shall be provided before the approval of the Final Map, by the Licensed Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer preparing the Final Map. The Monumentation Bond shall be provided in an amount to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

94. Prior to the release of the Monumentation Bond, the Licensed Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer who prepared the Final Map shall submit a letter to the City Engineer verifying the setting of all monuments, confirming that all monuments have been set in conformance with the recorded Final Map, and confirming that the Applicant/property owner has paid the Licensed Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer in full for the setting of the monuments.

95. Prior to the release of all Faithful Performance Bonds and Labor and Materials Bonds, all improvements shall be completed, constructed, and accepted by the

City, and a warranty bond shall be provided in accordance with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

Community Services Department

96. The site has an existing Art in Public Places sculpture that shall be maintained onsite. Per the Art in Public Places Policy Manual, the Applicant must submit a letter to City staff explaining the impacts of construction and efforts to be taken to protect the art piece ahead of demolition beginning. The Applicant may be subject to additional submittals regarding the existing sculpture based on the nature of the impacts, which will be determined by City staff.

Fire Department

97. A submittal of a fire master plan (FMP) to the Brea Fire Department (FD) prior to issuance of permits is required. This is a separate submittal to Brea FD for review and approval. At time of submittal, the FMP shall include the fire department access road, gates across the access road, location of existing and proposed public and/or on-site fire hydrants, fire lane marking, hose pulls that extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls, fire flow requirements based on construction type and square footage of building, location of the FDC and Knox box.
a. A 24-foot fire access road is required in a VHFSZ per BCC.

98. The Project requires the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system.

Warehouse fire sprinkler systems shall be designed to NFPA 13 Figure 16.2.1.3.2 (d) curve “G”. Use is considered undetermined if a specific tenant/occupant is not identified at the time the permit is issued. Where a subsequent occupancy requires a system with greater capability, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to upgrade the system to the required density for the new occupancy. BCC §

16.04.120.

99. The Project requires the installation of a fire alarm and fire sprinkler monitoring system designed and installed by a C-10 licensed contractor. 100. On-site fire hydrants shall be required if a portion of the facility or building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building. 2022 FC § 507.5.1. 101. The project requires a separate submittal for combustible soil-gas/methane mitigation. A separate plan shall be submitted per the Brea Fire Combustible Soil Gas Guidelines.
102. A fire safety plan during construction is required to be submitted as set forth in CFC Chapter 33.

103. Emergency responder radio coverage shall be installed in accordance with CFC 510 and Brea Fire Department guidelines.
104. Portions of the Project Site are located in a Local Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Preliminary fuel modification plans shall be reviewed and approved by the fire code official concurrent with the submittal for approval of any tentative map.

Final fuel modification plans shall be submitted to and approved by the fire code official prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
105. Portions of the Project Site are located in a Local Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and California Code of Regulations Title 14 Fire Safety Regulations. 106. Additional requirements may be imposed when the project is submitted for Fire Department plan check review/ approval.

Police Department
107. The City has established an ICC. The ICC is a system comprised of advanced technology that is revolutionizing how the Brea Police Department prevents, manages, and solves crime. The Project will benefit from the installation of various ICC elements in the vicinity of the development that will allow the Brea Police Department to generate investigative leads, manage critical incidents in real-time, monitor special events, conduct traffic management and Emergency Operation Center functions, and conduct other crime prevention and suppression activities. The Applicant is, therefore, required to provide the following ICC elements, as determined necessary and feasible by the Brea Police Department, the City Traffic Engineer, and the City Engineer:
a. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy issuance:
i. The Applicant is required to design and install an extension of the City’s fiber optic communications system from the traffic signal control cabinet at the intersection of Valencia Avenue & Birch Street to two new viewing locations at the or adjacent to the intersections of Valencia Avenue & Birch Street to Valencia Avenue & Imperial Highway. This new communications path will provide both ICC connectivity and traffic signal control and surveillance communications. Modifications to the City’s communication system may include, but are not limited to, installation of 2-inch conduit, pullboxes, fiber optic cable, communications cables, and associated communications infrastructure as required to connect the ICC elements. The installation of all improvements in the public and Caltrans rights-of-way or adjacent private property must comply with the specific requirements set by the Department of Public Works and

the Police Department and is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer to ensure compliance with all relevant technical and safety standards.
ii. The Applicant shall provide complete funding for the procurement and installation of two multi-sensor and PTZ video surveillance camera systems as determined and approved by the Brea Police Department. The surveillance camera systems are to be installed on at the or adjacent to the intersections of Valencia Avenue & Birch Street and Valencia Avenue & Imperial Highway as determined by the Brea Police Department, the City Traffic Engineer, and the City Engineer.

Mitigation Compliance
108. The Applicant shall comply with all project design features (PDF) and the required mitigation measures (MM) included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program listed in the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report, as follows:
a. MM HAZ-1: Prior 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:
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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 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.
iv. 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.
v. 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.
vi. 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.
vii. Documentation: Identify requirements for documentation and tracking of soil characterization, waste profiling, offsite transportation, disposal, and soil import, and soil import. b. MM HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of 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 Soil-Gas Guideline, the Project shall incorporate the following measures approved by the City of Brea during plan review:

i. Below-grade passive venting equally spaced under all foundation slabs with multiple vent risers.
ii. Vapor impermeable membrane under all foundations.
iii. Utility dams at the edge of each foundation and throughout Project area.
iv. All penetrations/voids in slabs sealed with an expanding 50-yr. foam. v. Wye-seals in all dry utilities.
c. 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. d. 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:
i. Guaranteed Ride Home programs – Ride-share and taxi rides for employees who carpool but need to leave work unexpectedly. ii. Carpool program promotions – Typically Waze Carpool unless there is a local alternative.
iii. Carpool parking – Designated preferred parking spaces for carpool vehicles.
iv. Bike racks / employee bike lockers.
v. Showers.
vi. A designated employee transportation coordinator.
e. 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.
f. 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 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 on-site monitoring shall end when all grounddisturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and Tribal monitor have indicated that all upcoming grounddisturbing 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 tribal cultural resources 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 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. g. 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.

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025- 14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BREA CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DJT4

PARCEL DELIVERY FACILITY PROJECT AND ADOPTING CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM REGARDING THE SAME
A. RECITALS:
i) The Planning Commission of the City of Brea ( the " Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for the DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility, which includes Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) No. 2023- 01, Plan Review ( PR) No. 2022- 09, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2022- 193, to allow the demolition of a 637, 503 square -foot office building, surface parking, and associated landscape areas and the construction of a new industrial warehousing development consisting of a 181, 500 square -foot parcel delivery building ( referred to herein as the " Project") for that certain real property located at 275 Valencia Avenue, in the City of Brea, and further legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 320- 233- 17, 320- 301- 11, and 320- 301- 12, as shown in the latest records of the County of Orange Assessor' s Office. ii) The Project applicant is Ware Malcomb, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618. iii) The Project site is a 31. 6 -acre property that is situated west of Valencia Avenue, north of Nasa Street, and west of Surveyor Avenue. The Project site has two General Plan Land Use and zoning designations. The northern approximately 24. 2 -acre portion has a General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of Light Industrial ( M- 1). The southern approximately 7. 4 -acre portion has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use II and a zoning designation of Mixed - Use II ( MU -II).

ATTACHMENT G
Resolution No. 2025- 14