14.A.
Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 88
CEQA Findings of Fact
April 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.
14.A.
Please Click on the Link Below to view documents listed. https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents
14.A.
1 Date: February 20, 2025
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, [email protected]
Site: Newland Simpson Road Project
Subject: Responses to Solera Diamond Valley Residents
This memo contains responses to comments related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City of Hemet received on November 30, 2024, prior to the City’s Planning Commission meeting on December 3, 2024 for which the Project is on the agenda. It should be noted that these comments were submitted outside of the public review period for the Draft EIR, which started May 17, 2024 and ended July 1, 2024.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
14.A.
2 Letter L3: Solera Diamond Valley Residents (25 pages) Late Comment Letter
14.A.
3
14.A.
4
14.A.
5
14.A.
6
14.A.
7
14.A.
8
14.A.
9
14.A.
10
14.A.
11
14.A.
12
14.A.
13
14.A.
14
14.A.
15
14.A.
16
14.A.
17
14.A.
18
14.A.
19
14.A.
20
14.A.
21
14.A.
22
14.A.
23
14.A.
24
14.A.
25
14.A.
26
14.A.
27
14.A.
28 Response to Letter L3: Solera Diamond Valley Residents, dated December 2, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment L3.1: The comment states that Solera Diamond Valley Residents are submitting comments regarding the sufficiency of the Newland Simpson Road Project Draft EIR under CEQA. The comment then provides a description of the proposed Project.
Response L3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and provides a summary of the proposed Project and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue.
Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment L3.2: This comment states that the Project would operate as a “high cube fulfillment center warehouse” that would not include any cold storage; however, there are no mitigation measures or conditions that prohibit the use of cold storage which could lead to more severe impacts.
Response L3.2: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As identified on page 3-33 of Section 3.0, Project Description Draft EIR, the building is not designed to accommodate and would not include any warehouse cold storage or refrigerated uses. As such, cold storage is not included as part of this Project. Additionally, the Project would be conditioned to prohibit future cold storage uses. Should the Project later be modified to propose cold storage, the analysis would be required to be revised under subsequent CEQA evaluation to evaluate the Project change, including air toxic emissions and health impacts from cold storage and TRUs.
Comment L3.3: This comment states that many of the trucks accessing the site would be routed on local roadways which are used by nearby residents which would result in an increase in noise and air pollution.
The comment states that Simpson Road is not a truck route, yet the Project proposes all of the driveways to be located on Simpson Road. The comment states that the EIR should include additional mitigation measures for operational noise including mitigation that would reduce the size of the Project.
Response L3.3: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. While Simpson Road is not a designated truck route, both Warren Road and Domenigoni Parkway are designated as truck routes, which would be primarily used by trucks to access the site. Trucks utilizing Simpson Road would be doing so via either Domenigoni Parkway or Warren Road to access the driveways along Simpson Road. Due to the nature of the Project site, with the drainage located to the south of the site and the bridge located on the eastern portion, the driveways were designed to be on Simpon Road in order to allow for safe ingress and egress. In terms of air pollution, an air quality analysis operational health risk assessment was completed and included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and shows that potential health impacts to nearby residents and regional and localized air quality would be below all applicable thresholds with implementation of included mitigation measures.
Reducing the Project size does not constitute mitigation under CEQA as it would change the definition and design of the Project itself. However, the Draft EIR analyzed a Reduced Project Alternative as an Alternative. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative were analyzed within the Draft EIR. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to
14.A.
29 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. As set forth by CEQA, the Lead Agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. These findings are provided in Exhibit B to the Staff Report.
For operational roadway noise impacts, mitigation measures were discussed within Section 5.12, Noise, and implementation of all possible mitigation measures was found to be infeasible. Potential noise reducing actions associated with truck traffic, including rubberized asphalt hot mix pavement and off-site noise barriers, were analyzed. While rubberized asphalt may provide some noise reduction in certain circumstances, the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (included as Draft EIR Appendix M) recognizes that this is only effective for tire-on-pavement noise at higher speeds and would not reduce truck-related off-site traffic noise levels associated with truck engine and exhaust stacks to less than significant levels. Since the use of rubberized asphalt would not lower the off-site traffic noise levels below a level of significance, rubberized asphalt is not proposed as mitigation for the Project because while it would reduce tire on pavement noise, it does not address any other noise sources such as exhaust or engine noises and would not effectively lower noises to below a level of significance.
Off-site noise barriers were also considered in the Noise Impact Analysis as a potential traffic noise mitigation measure to reduce the impacts. Off-site noise barriers are estimated to provide a readily perceptible 5 dBA reduction which, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is simple to attain when blocking the line-of-sight from the noise source to the receiver. Caltrans guidance in the Highway Design Manual, Section 1102.3(3), indicates that for design purposes, the noise barrier should intercept the line of sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the receptor, and an 11.5-foot-high truck stack height is assumed to represent the truck engine and exhaust noise source. However, the Applicant and the City does not have the ability to implement an 11.5 feet tall sound barrier wall on the nearby private residences given it would constitute a taking. Further, this wall height also would not be allowed by the City’s code. Therefore, noise barriers are not proposed as mitigation for the Project because they are infeasible.
Comment L3.4: This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to fully analyze the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts or propose and adopt feasible mitigation measures. The comment further states that the Draft EIR must further analyze Project alternatives and the City must adopt the environmentally superior alternative absent adequate findings.
Response L3.4: This comment is conclusory and does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Services, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the Project’s conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Retention of onsite agricultural uses would be infeasible as it would prevent the development of onsite buildings, which would inhibit implementation of the Project as a whole. Replacement of agricultural resources offsite would be infeasible as creation of new farmland-status properties within the City is outside of the City and Applicant control. Additional offsite mitigation would be infeasible as it would require the Applicant to purchase replacement acreage for farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland; however, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts as the Project parcels have no relationship to the loss of agricultural lands within the City or County. There is no available replacement acreage of lower quality farmland within the City or County that could be mitigated to Prime Farmland.
Farmland within the City or County is either planned for future development of non-agricultural uses or already designated by the Department of Conservation as Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Prime Farmland. If the City were able to locate land that could be improved in order to meet the Prime Farmland designation per Department of Conservation requirements, there is no way to guarantee that any improvements would ultimately result in the change in classification, as that is determined by the Department of Conservation as well as other climate factors such as rainfall.
14.A.
30 As discussed in Section 5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 79 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions.
Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
As above in response L3.3, the use of a sound barrier or rubberized asphalt would not be feasible in reducing Project impacts.
As discussed in Section 5.15, Transportation, pursuant to CAPCOA Guidance the maximum allowable reduction in VMT through implementation of measures is 15 percent. As Project TAZ’s VMT/SP is over 15 percent above the City baseline, there is no feasible way to fully reduce VMT to a level that is less than significant.
The Draft EIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the Lead Agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project.
As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
Draft EIR Page 8-1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this Draft EIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted by CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the proposed Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the proposed Project. The qualitative analysis provided is sufficient to support the impacts claims.
As shown on Table 8-1, Alternative 2 is expected to generate approximately 479 daily trips, compared to the proposed Projects 2,539. Since trips are calculated based on building square footage, an 81% decrease in building area with the same proposed use would result in an 81% decrease in trips. Given that a majority of GHG emissions are from mobile emissions, it is expected that this reduction would be greatly reduced compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 was selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The comment misconstrues PRC Section 21081(a), which allows for an agency to approve a proposed project if the agency makes a finding that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report” (Public Resource Code Section 21081, subd. (a)). As such, the City could approve the Project so long as it makes the finding that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
Comment L3.5: This comment states that the City should not take any action on the Project until the City adopts new “warehouse standards” and the standards of AB 98 should be included in the proposed Project.
14.A.
31 Response L3.5: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. While the proposed Project would not be required to implement AB 98 given the timing of the initial entitlement submittal, the loading docks are located more than 900 feet from any sensitive receptors and the proposed Project would adhere to many of the guidelines. The proposed truck loading bays would be oriented away from any sensitive receivers. The Project would comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for building efficiency and the Green Building Code. The Project would feature a 100 percent solar-ready roof, providing 64 charging stations for light duty vehicles as well as providing charging readiness for medium and heavy duty vehicles. All cargo handling equipment would be non-diesel powered or electric. Thus, while the Project is not explicitly complying with AB 98 due to the distance to nearby receptors, the Project would include many features consistent with AB
98. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Comment L3.6: This comment states that the proposed 60-foot buildings would result in a significant impact to the rural aesthetic of the area, including views of the mountains from Simpson Road. The comment states that the Draft EIR does not provide any “before” photographs showing the site before development and the single visual simulation odes not adequately illustrate the views of the entire area. The commenter states that the proposed setbacks do not provide relief for the view of the 60-foot buildings and that mitigation should be included to limit the height of the buildings to 40-45 feet and to locate the loading docks on the south side of the buildings only.
Response L3.6: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The comment incorrectly asserts that there are no photos of the Project site before any development. Figures 3-3 Aerial View, 3-4a, and 3-4b Site Photos capture the views of the Project site in its current condition. The Draft EIR adequately analyzed the potential impacts to scenic vistas, and this comment does not provide any substantial evidence to support a new impact. Pursuant to Section 15064, “an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate… the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed Project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed Project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Comment L3.7: This comment states that the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to Agricultural Resources. The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to analyze all possible mitigation including conservation easements. The comment also states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with various General Plan measures aimed at preserving agricultural land. The comment also suggests the Project either remove the truck trailer parking lot as part of the Project or remove building 2 in order to maintain some of the agricultural land onsite.
Response L3.7: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Services, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the Project’s conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Retention of onsite agricultural uses would be infeasible as it would prevent the development of onsite buildings, which would inhibit implementation of the Project as a whole. Replacement of agricultural resources offsite would be infeasible as creation of new farmland-status properties within the City is outside of the City and Applicant control. Additional offsite mitigation would be infeasible as it would require the Applicant to purchase replacement acreage for farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland; however, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts as the Project parcels have no relationship to the loss of
14.A.
32 agricultural lands within the City or County. There is no available replacement acreage of lower quality farmland within the City or County that could be mitigated to Prime Farmland. Farmland within the City or County is either planned for future development of non-agricultural uses or already designated by the Department of Conservation as Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Prime Farmland.
If the City were able to locate land that could be improved in order to meet the Prime Farmland designation per Department of Conservation requirements, there is no way to guarantee that any improvements would ultimately result in the change in classification, as that is determined by the Department of Conservation as well as other climate factors such as rainfall.
Reducing the Project size does not constitute mitigation under CEQA as it would change the definition and design of the Project itself. However, the Draft EIR also contains a discussion of possible alternatives that could reduce potential impacts. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
Comment L3.8: This comment states that the proposed Project utilizes incorrect traffic assumption by utilizing “transload” facilities which generate fewer trips than other warehouse uses.
Response L3.8: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The TUMF study and splits within are standard practice use for the County of Riverside for warehouses larger than 200,000 SF. As general practice, SQAMD truck splits are utilized for traffic analysis outside of Riverside, whereas TUMF splits are utilized within the County of Riverside. The TUMF study was a study completed by Riverside County and caters to their unique use of warehouses of different sizes and operations within the County. ITE truck trip splits, noting that the data utilized in the manual is national, instead of regional or local, tends to have lower number of truck spits than TUMF. It is therefore more conservative to use TUMF trip generation and truck splits, which would result in a more conservative number of truck trips as compared to ITE.
It is also to be noted, “transload” means to transfer products from one mode of transportation to another. It does not necessarily engage the use of railroad. This is what the facility is proposing as warehouse use. The comment goes on the refer to the use as a high cube distribution center, which would be incorrect. The proposed Project is a high cube transload short-term warehouse.
Comment L3.9: This comment states that the vehicle mixes do not match between the GHG study and the air quality study and that the GHG report only assumes 16.90% of truck trips being heavy heavy duty with respect to Building 1. The comment also states that the assumed truck trip length is underestimated as they should be based off of the length to travel to the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach (40 or 70 or 90 miles). The comment also states that the Project is not conditioned to exclude cold storage uses and the analysis must be updated to include the worst-case analysis of cold storage uses.
Response L3.9: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology and utilized the average trip length for light-heavy (15.3-miles), medium-heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy-heavy trucks (39.9-miles) which is based on SCAQMD’s recommendations outlined in their implementation of the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) adopted in 2021.
These trip lengths represent averages and therefore would include local trips as well as potential trips that may occur to the applicable port facilities. It would be speculative to assume that all Project truck trips would extend only to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and because the percentage of truck trips
14.A.
33 that would extend to the ports is not known at this time. It is, therefore, appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.
As identified on page 3-33 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the building is not designed to accommodate and would not include any warehouse cold storage or refrigerated uses. As such, cold storage is not included as part of this Project. Additionally, the Project would be conditioned to prohibit future cold storage uses. Should the Project be modified after approvals to propose cold storage, the analysis would be revised under subsequent CEQA evaluation to evaluate the Project change, including air toxic emissions and health impacts from cold storage and TRUs.
Comment L3.10: This comment states that the proposed Project should be required to include Level 3/DC Fast Chargers for heavy duty and medium duty trucks. The comment then lists several mitigation measures that would reduce air quality impacts.
Response L3.10: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project would provide electric prewiring at dock doors pursuant to 2022 Title 24 requirements, which would allow for the installation of future truck charging infrastructure should electric heavy-duty trucks become economically and technologically feasible. As discussed in section
5.3 Air Quality, proposed Project construction and operational impacts have already been reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures within the Draft EIR. Therefore, in regard to air quality impacts, there is no nexus between the proposed mitigation and Project impacts.
Thus, no further mitigation is required, and no further response is necessary.
Comment L3.11: This comment states that the region’s good movements networks have worsened air quality in the area, especially regarding NOx emissions. The comment states that feasible mitigation to reduce NOx impacts include the phase-in of electric, hybrid electric, hydrogen electric, or battery operated (non-diesel) trucks.
Response L3.11: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in section 5.3 Air Quality, proposed Project construction and operational impacts have already been reduced to a less than significant level, including impacts regarding NOx emissions, with the implementation of the mitigation measures within the Draft EIR.
Therefore, in regard to air quality impacts, there is no nexus between the proposed mitigation and Project impacts.
Regarding zero emission trucks and related infrastructure, as of 2025, the use of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks in support of uses such as those proposed by the Project remains infeasible given the extremely limited commercial availability of zero-emission trucks, as well as infrastructure limitations, including limited truck-accessible charging/refueling stations and electrical grid capacity. While many heavy-duty truck manufacturers have released zero-emission battery electric and hydrogen-powered trucks, these vehicles have yet to reach large scale production, and their use remains extremely limited. Tesla first revealed the Tesla Semi in 2017, and an initial order for 100 trucks was placed by PepsiCo. However, the Tesla Semi did not enter production until 2022, and, as of April 2024, only 36 trucks have been delivered to PepsiCo, with additional orders placed by UPS, Walmart, Sysco, Schneider, and ASKO Norway remaining unfulfilled. Although the Tesla Semi was initially slated to begin production in 2019, with production expected to hit 50,000 units in 2024, battery production constraints have severely limited production, and it is uncertain at this time when these orders may be expected to be fulfilled.1 Facing delays with the Tesla Semi, several companies have turned to other vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler’s eCascadia. However, with a significantly shorter range of approximately 230 miles compared to 1 https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-semi-trucks-short-supply-pepsico-its-rivals-use-competing-ev-bigrigs-2024-04-19/
14.A.
34 the 500-mile range of the Tesla Semi, the eCascadia’s use case is significantly limited in comparison. As of late 2023, Schneider has taken delivery of 92 eCascadias2, representing 0.9 percent of the company’s fleet of 10,600 tractors.3
The limited availability of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles is borne out in CARB’s Emission Factor (EMFAC) Model, as well as data published by HVIP. EMFAC model outputs provide detailed information as to the vehicle fleet in California, including fuel types for various vehicle classes and vehicle populations. Per EMFAC data, in 2024, battery electric trucks made up 0.01 percent of California’s medium-duty truck fleet, and 0.21 percent of the heavy-duty truck fleet.4 Similarly, based on HVIP’s ZeroEmission Vehicle Population Dashboard,5 as of October 2024, there are currently 226 medium-duty and 197 heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles within the SCAQMD jurisdiction, which includes Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, as well as much of Los Angeles County. In 2023, statewide deliveries totaled 183 medium-duty vehicles and 121 heavy-duty vehicles, while in 2024 there have been no medium-duty truck vehicle deliveries and 13 heavy-duty truck deliveries.
Further, the availability of truck accessible vehicle charging stations and hydrogen refueling stations in California and the United States as a whole severely limits the feasibility of zero-emission trucks. Although the California Energy Commission estimates that there are over 11,000 DC fast charging stations in California,6 the vast majority of these are intended to accommodate light duty passenger vehicles and lack the accessibility for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. California’s first publicly accessible DC fast charging station for medium- and heavy-duty trucks opened in March 2023 in Otay Mesa.7 In addition, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, there are currently 12 publicly accessible DC fast charging stations with a total of 21 EV charging ports across the United States and Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy-duty (class 6-8) trucks.8 As of early 2024, medium- and heavy-duty truck DC fast charging depots are planned for three locations along Interstate 5 in the Central Valley as well as in Blythe9, the lack of charging stations severely limits the useful range of battery electric trucks, effectively restricting their use to local routes only.
Adoption and implementation of hydrogen fuel cell trucks face similar challenges. Based on data provided by the California Energy Commission, there are currently 68 light-duty vehicle hydrogen refueling stations in California.10 However, similar to DC fast chargers, these stations are intended for use by light duty passenger vehicles and would not be capable of accommodating medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
According to the United States Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, there are five hydrogen refueling stations across the United States and Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy-duty (class 6-8) trucks.11
Although infrastructure improvements and the installation of medium- and heavy-duty truck capable DC fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations are currently in progress, the current state of charging and refueling infrastructure severely limits the feasibility of ZEV trucks beyond local routes where charging or hydrogen refueling would not be necessary outside of the location where trucks would be domiciled.
Finally, based on the current state of the electrical grid and the increasing adoption of electric vehicles in California, significant investments in the grid will need to occur in the coming decades will be needed to 2 https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/schneider-1-million-emission-free-miles-freightliner-ecascadia-electric-trucks/ 3 https://schneider.com/resources/infographic/schneider-by-the-numbers 4 https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/ 5 https://californiahvip.org/industryinitiatives/#cazevdashboard 6 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/electric-vehicle 7 https://www.sempra.com/cas-first-public-dc-fast-chargers-electric-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles-truck-stop-open-public 8 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest 9 https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/ev-charging/big-electric-truck-charging-depots-are-coming-soon-to-california 12https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/hydrogen-refueling 11 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest
14.A.
35 keep pace. However, these upgrades will be spread out over a period of decades such that the costs of infrastructure upgrades in any given year may be kept reasonable. Additionally, technologies such as battery integrated DC fast chargers12 may be used to reduce strain on the grid and limit the need for expensive utility upgrades. At the local level, there is not sufficient grid capacity at this time to support electrification of a significant portion of the proposed Project’s truck fleet.
Thus, no further mitigation is required, and no further response is necessary.
Comment L3.12: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts as it relies on an outdated white paper issued by the South Coast AQMD.
The City has a list of cumulative industrial warehouses in the City an those should be included in the cumulative evaluation.
Response L3.12: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR lists the cumulative projects in Draft EIR Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects List, within Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Also, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.3.7, Cumulative Impacts, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution0F 13, if an individual project does not
exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. While the SCAQMD is in the process of updating its cumulative guidance, to date new guidance has not been released and, as a Responsible Agency to thousands of warehouse projects and as an expert in the field of air quality, SCAQMD has not commented on the current use of its methodology for analyzing cumulative air quality impacts. As detailed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality, the Project would not exceed any thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
Impacts related to toxics and health effects are discussed on pages 5.3-39 through 5.3-41 of Section 5.3, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR, which describes that the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources, but that the Project’s emissions would equate to
1.45 and 0.73% of NOx and 0.05% of VOC emissions. Based on the fact that Project emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not have the potential to result in cumulative health impacts related to NOx. Additionally, based on existing SCAQMD recommendations for Mobile Source Health Risk Assessments, the combined construction and operational impacts of the proposed Project at the closest effected receptor is estimated at 1.29 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would result in emissions that are far below existing SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s impacts on human health risks would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
Comment L3.13: This comment states that the State of California has committed to aggressive goals to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project would result in 10,362.39 MTCO2e/yr and fails to adopt all feasible mitigation. The comment states that the mitigation measures listed in Comment O3.10 would also help reduce GHG emissions from the Project beyond Title 24 requirements. The comment states that the mitigation should also include solar to at least meet Title 24 requirements.
Response L3.13: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not already disclosed in the EIR or evidence that not all feasible mitigation has been included in the Draft EIR. In regard to the lack of feasibility of additional GHG mitigation measures, page 5.8-13 describes that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 79 percent 12 https://freewiretech.com/pro-series/ 13 SCAQMD. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impactswhite-paper.pdf
14.A.
36 of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions. In regard to the Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation and furthering the use of electric heavy-duty trucks, as previously discussed the future tenant(s) of the proposed buildings is unknown. However, given the type of warehouse development proposed, it is unlikely that the future tenant(s) would own their own fleet of heavy-duty trucks, which would render it infeasible for the Lead Agency, Applicant, or tenant(s) to control the types of trucks accessing the Project site. Further, as discussed in detail in Response L3.11, based on data from the American Trucking Associations, electrification of heavy-duty trucks is cost prohibitive for development and the grid network provided by Southern California Edison cannot currently meet the electricity demand that would be required to support electric vehicle infrastructure for heavy-duty trucks. In addition, SCAQMD has stated that zero emission heavy duty trucks are not commercially available or technologically feasible to implement on a wide-scale basis beyond a limited pilot scale.14
A typical diesel heavy-duty truck costs approximately $180,000 while a comparable battery-electric truck could cost approximately $400,000.15 Based on the amount of heavy duty trucks accessing the site each day (approximately 292 as estimated in Draft EIR Table 5.15-5) this would equate to an approximately $64,240,000 increase in operating costs to utilize electric heavy-duty trucks. This increase in operating costs would result in the Project being not economically viable given that the Project is speculative and the buildings would be nearly impossible to lease as operating costs would transfer to the tenant(s). Therefore, requiring the use of electric heavy-duty trucks is not economically feasible.
In addition, the proposed Project would feature a 100% solar ready roof, which exceeds Title 24 requirements and would allow future tenants to install solar panels covering up to 100 percent of the rooftop. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Comment L3.14: This comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with the City of Hemet General Plan especially regarding goals for GHG emission reduction.
Response L3.14: The Draft EIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) A compiled table of applicable Hemet General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the policies mentioned throughout this comment letter are not mandatory policies for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. In the case of Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the courts found that “none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and [the] project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy.” Thus, CEQA does not require the Project to be consistent with each comment mentioned by the commenter.
Comment L3.15: This comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with the County CAP as it would result in an increase in GHG emissions. The commenter states that LEEDS building certification, solar, and shaded surfaces are potential mitigation measures that could reduce impacts. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Letter from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer of South Coast Air Quality Management District. August 3, 2021. 15 American Trucking Associations. March 19, 2024. New Report Pegs Cost of Electrifying U.S. Commercial Truck Fleet at $1 Trillion.
Accessed from: https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/new-report-pegs-cost-electrifying-us-commercial-truck-fleet-1-trillion
14.A.
37 Response L3.15: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed Project would not be compliance with the City of Hemet CAP, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The Riverside County CAP would not be applicable to the Project as it is not under the jurisdiction of the County. The proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the use of Energy Star certified light bulbs and light features. In addition, the proposed Project would feature a 100% solar-ready roof which exceeds the Title 24 requirement of 15%. The proposed Project would also include 64 EV charging stations. While the proposed Project would not obtain a sustainable building certification, the proposed Project would go above and beyond the requirements of Title 24. Thus, the proposed Project would implement the measures mentioned in the comment.
Comment L3.16: This comment states the proposed Project is inconsistent with several County of Riverside General Plan Policies.
Response L3.16: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) A compiled table of applicable Hemet General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the policies mentioned throughout this comment letter are not mandatory policies for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. In the case of Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the courts found that “none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and [the] project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy.” Thus, CEQA does not require the Project to be consistent with each comment mentioned by the commenter. Further, the Riverside County General Plan policies would not be applicable to the Project as the Project is not under the jurisdiction of Riverside County.
Comment L3.17: This comment states that the proposed Project conflicts with many of the policies of the 2020-2025 SCAG RTP/SCS.
Response L3.17: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The SCAG RTP/SCS provides overall regional goals, therefore the referenced goal is not a Project specific goal. As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not prevent SCAG from implementing actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Project includes measures related to building design, landscaping, and energy systems pursuant to Title 24 guidelines that would be consistent with SCAG’s goals. The Project consistency discussion within Table 5.11-1 provides justification for consistency with each goal. Thus, the Draft EIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.
Comment L3.18: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not discuss consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan.
Response L3.18: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project’s consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 5.8-13. The proposed Project would not interfere with the State’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by
14.A.
38 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as demonstrated below. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of an 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279.
Comment L3.19: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately support the fact that energy use would be less than significant. The comment states that the Projects energy demand must be mitigated, including 100% solar energy use.
Comment L3.19: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the use of Energy Star certified light bulbs and light features. In addition, the proposed Project would feature a 100 percent solar-ready roof which exceeds the Title 24 requirement of 15 percent. The proposed Project would also include 64 EV charging stations. While the proposed Project would not obtain a sustainable building certification, the proposed Project would go above and beyond the requirements of Title 24. Thus, the Project would reduce reliance on fossil fuels as discussed in the comment. The proposed Project would include solar infrastructure on each building to support onsite renewable energy generation and use. Although the Project’s future tenants are not currently known, and the use of solar panels is generally tailored to the electrical demands of the tenant, the building tenants would be able to install solar panels on 100 percent of the rooftop and utilize that onsite power for electric plug ins at loading docks and onsite motorized equipment.
Comment L3.20: This comment states that the proposed Project should include additional mitigation in order to reduce VMT. The comment states that the Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies related to sustainability through increasing energy efficiency and decreasing VMT.
Response L3.20: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.15 Transportation, CAPCOA measure T-6 requires implementation of a commute trip reduction project; and CAPCOA measure T-18 requires provision of pedestrian improvements, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions.
With compliance with existing rules, and implementation of CAPCOA measures T-6 and T-18 that are included as Mitigation Measure GHG-10 and Project Design Feature TR-1, the Project VMT would be reduced by 13.82 percent. It should be noted that while PDF TR-1 includes the provision of sidewalks, due to the lack of pedestrian infrastructure in the Project area, the sidewalks that will be constructed by the Project would not result in a significant reduction in VMT. Therefore, this measure is considered to be a supportive measure and would not result in a significant or measurable reduction in VMT on its own.
Despite this reduction, Project VMT would continue to exceed the baseline threshold. Furthermore, pursuant to CAPCOA Guidance the maximum allowable reduction in VMT through implementation of measures is 15 percent. As Project TAZ’s VMT/SP is over 15 percent above the City baseline, there is no feasible way to fully reduce VMT to a level that is less than significant.
Further, in regard to City General Plan policy consistency, the goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) A compiled table of applicable Hemet General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the policies mentioned throughout this comment letter are not mandatory policies for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. In the case of Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the courts found that “none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and [the] project need not be in perfect
14.A.
39 conformity with each and every policy.” Thus, CEQA does not require the Project to be consistent with each comment mentioned by the commenter.
Comment L3.21: This comment states that the EIR fails to explain how the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan as the project site is currently designated for Mixed Uses and the Business Park land use designation is intended to support clean industries which would not include industrial uses.
Response L3.21: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s Mixed Use designation to Business Park. Thus, the Draft EIR appropriately evaluates the proposed Project, which is the proposed development and the proposed Business Park General Plan designation that would be consistent with the existing zoning designation. Pursuant to state law, a general plan and zoning designation require consistency and any inconsistency be brought into conformance in a prompt manner.
Accordingly, the Applicant is simply seeking compliance with state law to harmonize the land use designations. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in consistency with the existing zoning and would not result in an environmental effect. Further, a land use designation in and of itself does not constitute a "land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." It is a designation to provide development standards for projects. Therefore, the Project’s proposed General Plan Amendment does not constitute a conflict with the policies of the General Plan.
Comment L3.22: This comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with various General Plan policies.
Response L3.22: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Draft EIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) A compiled table of applicable Hemet General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the policies mentioned throughout this comment letter are not mandatory policies for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. In the case of Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the courts found that “none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and [the] project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy.” Thus, CEQA does not require the Project to be consistent with each comment mentioned by the commenter.
Comment L3.23: This comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with various County of Riverside General Plan policies.
Response L3.23: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The commenter is referred to Response L3.16 in regard to consistency with Riverside County General Plan policies.
Comment L3.24: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not include any mitigation measures related to the significant and unavoidable operational roadway noise impacts. The comment suggests that rubberized asphalt could reduce freeway noise next to residential receptors and the Draft EIR does not provide substantial evidence to support why that is not feasible. The Draft EIR also fails to explain why the installation of noise barrier in sensitive off-site locations is infeasible. In addition, the Project could limit the nighttime delivery hours to mitigate the potential noise impacts.
14.A.
40 Response L3.24: The Draft EIR explored the potential to include mitigation for the operational roadway noise increases in Chapter 5.12 Noise, and found that the measures would not be effective in reducing impacts. While rubberized asphalt would provide some noise reduction, the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (included as Draft EIR Appendix M) recognizes that this is only effective for tireon-pavement noise at higher speeds and would not reduce truck-related off-site traffic noise levels associated with truck engine and exhaust stacks to less than significant levels. In regard to off-site noise barriers, the Applicant team does not own the land in which the sensitive receptors are situated and therefore do not have the ability to construct a screening wall on private land which they do not own.
Furthermore, reducing the Project size and/or changing hours of truck deliveries does not constitute mitigation under CEQA as it would change the definition and design of the Project itself. However, the Draft EIR analyzed a Reduced Project Alternative as an Alternative. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives.
Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative were analyzed within the Draft EIR.
Comment L3.25: This comment states the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan as it only includes minimal pedestrian improvements and no bicycle facilities or access to public facilities.
Response L3.25: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.15, Transportation, the proposed Project would construct sidewalks along all Project frontages along Simpson Road and Waren Road, as shown in Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan. Because no sidewalks currently exist along the Project site frontages, the Project would improve pedestrian facilities and the sidewalk network along the Project frontages. The proposed Project would not conflict with pedestrian facilities but instead would provide additional facilities.
Implementation of the Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is located approximately two miles northeast, on Sanderson Avenue. The existing transit service would continue to service the area and would also serve the employees of the site, who would be given easier access through the proposed sidewalk improvements. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Comment L3.26: This comment states that 40 percent of all truck trips generated would utilize Simpson Road which is not a designated truck route. The comment states that the Project must avoid roadways that go near sensitive receptors.
Response L3.26: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. While Simpson Road is not a designated truck route, both Warren Road and Domenigoni Parkway are designated as truck routes, which would be primarily used by trucks to access the site. Trucks utilizing Simpson Road would be doing so via either Domenigoni Parkway or Warren Road to access the driveways along Simpson Road. Due to the nature of the Project site with the drainage located to the south of the site and the bridge located on the eastern portion, the driveways were designed to be on Simpon Road in order to allow for safe ingress and egress.
Comment L3.27: This comment states that implementation of the proposed Project would result in certain intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service. The comment states that the Draft EIR does not propose any mitigation for the traffic impacts and only relies on a “fair share” contribution.
Response L3.27: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The comment states that the Project would have a significant LOS impact at the intersection of Warren Road and Stetson Avenue. The commenter misconstrues the analysis within the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the Project. As shown on page 2 of the TIA, the intersection
14.A.
41 operates at LOS F in the existing condition. The unsatisfactory operation of the intersection is not caused by Project traffic. For this reason, a fair-share contribution to the future improvement of the intersection is appropriate as there is no nexus to require the Project to remedy an existing deficiency.
Comment L3.28: This comment states that the Draft EIR is misleading, and the comment alleges that the Project would cause potentially significant traffic impacts related to Impact TR-1 because the Project would contribute fair share payments to several intersections and because there are no feasible improvements at the intersection of SR-79/Domenigoni Parkway. The comment also states that the City is precluded from approving the Project due to these unmitigated impacts.
Response L3.28: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, while the comment is correct in stating that the Project would result in 8,555 daily vehicle trips, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Draft EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion. Therefore, the “unmitigated impacts” that the comment identifies are not, in fact, considered significant Project impacts per CEQA.
Comment L3.29: The comment states that the Project would result in significant impacts related to VMT but does not adopt all feasible VMT mitigation. The comment summarizes the Draft EIR’s VMT analysis and states that construction of the sidewalk would provide no measurable benefit. The comment states that Mitigation Measure GHG-10 is unenforceable under CEQA and that several of the elements are inapplicable to the Project. The comment states that multiple additional measures from CAPCOA’s Handbook are feasible and applicable to the Project.
The comment states that to reduce VMT, the Project should adopt the alternative involving mixed-use development and provides additional examples of mitigation options, such as VMT exchange programs.
Response L3.29: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Section 5.15 Transportation, CAPCOA measure T-6 requires implementation of a commute trip reduction project; and CAPCOA measure T-18 requires provision of pedestrian improvements, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions.
With compliance with existing rules, and implementation of CAPCOA measures T-6 and T-18 that are included as Mitigation Measure GHG-10 and Project Design Feature TR-1, the Project VMT would be reduced by 13.82 percent. It should be noted that while PDF TR-1 includes the provision of sidewalks, due to the lack of pedestrian infrastructure in the Project area, the sidewalks that will be constructed by the Project would not result in a significant reduction in VMT. Therefore, this measure is considered to be a supportive measure and would not result in a significant or measurable reduction in VMT on its own.
Despite this reduction, Project VMT would continue to exceed the baseline threshold. Furthermore, pursuant to CAPCOA Guidance the maximum allowable reduction in VMT through implementation of measures is 15 percent. As Project TAZ’s VMT/SP is over 15 percent above the City baseline, there is no feasible way to fully reduce VMT to a level that is less than significant.
Regarding the mitigation measures provided by the commenter, these measures are not applicable for the reasons listed:
• T-1 Increase Residential Density – The Project is not a residential project and, therefore, the mitigation is not applicable.
14.A.
42 • T-7 Provide Ridesharing Program – This is included in the mandatory commute trip reduction program required as required by Mitigation Measure
• T-8 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program – This is included as Mitigation Measure GHG-10, which provides for a mandatory transportation demand management program specific to the future tenant.
• T-9 End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities – Due to the low numbers of bicyclists observed in the area, this mitigation is unlikely to be effective in reducing vehicle trips. • T-10 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool – This is included as Mitigation Measure GHG-10, which provides for a mandatory transportation demand management program specific to the future tenant.
• T-13 Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure – Electric Vehicle charging does not reduce vehicle trips and is therefore ineffective as a VMT mitigation measures. • T-17 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement – The Project would construct sidewalks along all Project frontages.
• T-18A -Construct or Improve Bike Facility – The Project would dedicate right-of-way along the project frontage for buildout of Simpson Road, including the planned Class II Bike Lane. As noted previously, due to the low numbers of bicyclists observed in the area, this mitigation is unlikely to be effective in reducing vehicle trips.
• T-19 Expand Bikeway Network – The Project would dedicate right-of-way along the project frontage for buildout of Simpson Road, including the planned Class II Bike Lane. As noted previously, due to the low numbers of bicyclists observed in the area, this mitigation is unlikely to be effective in reducing vehicle trips.
• T-24 Expand Transit Network Coverage – There is no transit service on Simpson Road serving the Project site, therefore improvement to the transit network are not applicable as Project mitigation.
Regarding the suggested mixed-use alternative, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative were analyzed within the Draft EIR. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. As set forth by CEQA, the Lead Agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. These findings are provided in Exhibit B to the Staff Report.
Comment L3.30: This comment states that the Project is near a high fire hazard severity zone and that the findings of less than significant impact is not supported by substantial evidence and provides additional discussion of what analysis should be included.
Response L3.30: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Draft EIR page 5.18-10 discusses that the nearest slopes are located approximately 0.25-miles southeast of the Project site across Domenigoni Parkway within the Domenigoni Mountains. Further, the predominant wind direction at the Project site area is typically from the west and north (NOAA, 2023). This suggests that a fire burning in the foothills southeast of the Project site has a low probability of being blown toward the site during typical prevailing wind conditions. While it is possible that a wildfire does not behave according to historic weather patterns, the Project site is not within a VHFHSZ, and it is unlikely that this worst-case scenario would occur. Further, the Project would be required to comply with California Fire Code and City of Hemet Municipal Code
14.A.
43 Article IX, which provide requirements to reduce the potential of fires that include vegetation management, construction materials and methods, installation of automatic sprinkler systems, and fire flows (the quantity of water available for fire-protection purposes). Compliance with these requirements would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. In addition, the proposed Project structures would consist mostly of concrete, which is a non-flammable material. Further, as discussed on Table 5.14-1, the closest fire station would be within a 4-minute drive of the Project site and would have adequate capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, the Draft EIR’s analysis provides substantial evidence that the Project would not result in a significant impact related to wildfire hazards.
Comment L3.31: This comment states that based on the Project’s development pattern, expansion of infrastructure, and proximity to undeveloped rural and agricultural lands, the Project presents the potential for growth inducing impacts.
Response L3.31: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed on Draft EIR page 6-4, the Project includes various roadway improvements to accommodate the safe passage and turning movements of the vehicles that would access the site on Simpson Road and Warren Road. The Project does not propose roadway extensions into new undeveloped areas that would allow for additional growth and development.
The Project site is currently served by existing water and storm drain facilities within Simpson Road. The Project also proposes installation of new potable water lines, irrigation lines, sewer lines, and stormwater drainage facilities on the site that would connect to surrounding, existing infrastructure in Simpson Road and Warren Road in order to accommodate the demands of the Project. The Project would also install a 24- inch sewer line in Simpson Road that would connect to the existing sewer line west of the Project site.
Therefore, the Project would not expand sewer services into unplanned areas. The proposed infrastructure improvements have been designed to serve only the demands of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant growth inducing impacts.
Comment L3.32: This comment gives a summary of the Project alternatives, along with opinion about their adequacy. The commenter states that absent findings of infeasibility supported by substantial evidence, the City must adopt the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 2.
Response L3.32: As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/ No Development Alternative, a Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative were analyzed within the Draft EIR. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. As set forth by CEQA, the Lead Agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. These findings are provided in Exhibit B to the Staff Report.
Comment L3.33: This comment states that based on the above comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and additional mitigation measures are required in accordance with CEQA.
Response L3.33: The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR evaluation. The commenter’s concerns were addressed above in Responses L2.2 through L2.6. In reviewing the above listed comments and making the appropriate revisions, when necessary, no significant new information was incorporated, and further, the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR accurately reflect the proposed Project and subsequent potential environmental impacts. Therefore, according to CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, Draft EIR recirculation would not be warranted.
14.A.
1 Date: December 3, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, [email protected]
Site: Newland Simpson Road Project
Subject: Responses to Advocates for the Environment
This memo contains responses to comments related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City of Hemet received on November 30, 2024, prior to the City’s Planning Commission meeting on December 3, 2024 for which the Project is on the agenda. It should be noted that these comments have been previously submitted in a comment letter to the Draft EIR, and responded to in the Final EIR, as detailed below.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
14.A.
2 Letter L2: Advocates for the Environment (4 pages) Late Comment letter
14.A.
3
14.A.
4
14.A.
5
14.A.
6 Response to Letter L2: Advocates for the Environment, dated December 2, 2024 This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment L2.1: This comment states that the letter is to serve as a further comment in addition to previous comments submitted by Advocates for the Environment. The comment states that Advocates for the Environment reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report and are submitting comments regarding the sufficiency of the Greenhouse Gas analysis under CEQA.
Response L2.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.
Comment L2.2: This comment states that vague and unenforceable mitigation measures violate CEQA and there is no way of showing that certain mitigation measures would be enforceable, which constitutes improper deferral. The comment states that Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2, GHG-3, GHG-4, and GHG-6 defer the analysis of the appropriate scope of mitigation to just prior to issuing a building permit and that Mitigation Measures GHG-8, GHG-9, and GHG-10 improperly delegate mitigation to the tenant or applicant at the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy. The comment states that these measures are improperly deferred as the EIR should be the instrument through which the City identifies specific details required to achieve GHG reductions.
The comment states that Mitigation Measure GHG-10 is too vague to enforce the details that are specified as it does not identify any mandatory features of a transportation demand (TDM). The comment states that the measure is vague and unenforceable because it allows the City or applicant to decline to adopt certain measures, even if feasible, and substitute a more preferable option even if it is less effective than any of the recommended specifications mentioned in the mitigation measure. The comment states that overall the mitigation measures violate CEQA’s requirement for specific and enforceable mitigation measures because none of the measures commit the Project to any particular standards and lack sufficient performance criteria.
Response L2.2: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not already disclosed in the EIR or evidence that the greenhouse gas mitigation measures are improperly deferred.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), CEQA allows for the development of mitigation after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details so long as the agency commits itself to the mitigation, adopts specific performance standards it would achieve, and identifies the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that performance standard. The commenter inaccurately states that Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2, GHG-3, GHG-4, and GHG-6 are deferred.
While these measures are required to be implemented prior to the issuance of building permits, the measures provide specific details or measures that the Applicant and/or Project must attain in order to comply with the mitigation and receive building permits. Until these measures are achieved, no building permit will be issued by the City of Hemet. These measures include requirements for all lighting to be Energy Star certified, provision of water efficient toilets and waterless urinals, provision of water efficient faucets, and installation of onsite signage for trucks to follow posted truck routes. Therefore, these measures do not defer the formulation of mitigation until building permit issuance and are fully enforceable in alignment with the requirements of CEQA.
In regard to Mitigation Measures GHG-8 and GHG-9, these measures also set forth specific details or measures that the Applicant and/or Project must attain in order to comply with the mitigation and receive
14.A.
7 certificates of occupancy. Until these measures are achieved, no certificate of occupancy will be issued by the City of Hemet. The timing of implementation of these measures is specific to certificate of occupancy as these relate to specific operations of the Project be each respective tenant. Therefore, these measures do not defer the formulation of mitigation until certificate of occupancy issuance and are fully enforceable in alignment with the requirements of CEQA.
Given that the proposed Project includes the development of two speculative warehouses, future tenants are unknown. Therefore, as allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), Mitigation Measure GHG-10 properly defers specific details of the required TDM program until a tenant is known prior to certificate of occupancy. As future tenants are unknown at this time, it is infeasible and impractical to prescribe specific details or requirements of the TDM program as the type of business operation, employee hours, and employee population are unknown. However, the Mitigation Measure sets specific performance standards that the TDM program must achieve and provides enforceability for the City of Hemet by providing for review and approval of the TDM program by the City Planning Division and City Building & Safety Division. Therefore, the measure is fully enforceable and does not constitute improper deferral under CEQA.
Comment L2.3: This comment states that the City determined that the Project would not be able to achieve mitigation beyond what was identified in the proposed mitigation measures, which is not supported by substantial evidence. The comment states that other mitigation measures are feasible that the City either did not consider or rejected without sufficient evidentiary basis such as requiring tenants to enroll in the EPA’s SmartWay Program, transitioning to electric vehicle infrastructure for heavy-duty trucks, and to purchase GHG offsets if significant GHG emissions remain after all feasible on-site mitigation measures.
Response L2.3: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not already disclosed in the EIR or evidence that not all feasible mitigation has been included in the Draft EIR. In regard to the lack of feasibility of additional GHG mitigation measures, page 5.8-13 describes that there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 79 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions. In regard to EPA’s SmartWay Program and furthering the use of electric heavy-duty trucks, as previously discussed the future tenant(s) of the proposed buildings is unknown.
However, given the type of warehouse development proposed, it is unlikely that the future tenant(s) would own their own fleet of heavy-duty trucks, which would render it infeasible for the Lead Agency, Applicant, or tenant(s) to control the types of trucks accessing the Project site. Further, based on data from the American Trucking Associations, electrification of heavy-duty trucks is cost prohibitive for development and the grid network provided by Southern California Edison cannot currently meet the electricity demand that would be required to support electric vehicle infrastructure for heavy-duty trucks. In addition, South Coast Air Quality Management District has stated that zero emission heavy duty trucks are not commercially available or technologically feasible to implement on a wide-scale basis beyond a limited pilot scale.1 A typical diesel heavy-duty truck costs approximately $180,000 while a comparable battery-electric truck could cost approximately $400,000.2 Based on the amount of heavy duty trucks accessing the site each day (approximately 292 as estimated in Draft EIR Table 5.15-5) this would equate to an approximately $64,240,000 increase in operating costs to utilize electric heavy-duty trucks. This increase in operating costs would result in the Project being not economically viable given that the Project is 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Letter from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer of South Coast Air Quality Management District. August 3, 2021. 2 American Trucking Associations. March 19, 2024. New Report Pegs Cost of Electrifying U.S. Commercial Truck Fleet at $1 Trillion. Accessed from: https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/new-report-pegs-cost-electrifying-us-commercialtruck-fleet-1-trillion
14.A.
8 speculative and the buildings would be nearly impossible to lease as operating costs would transfer to the tenant(s). Therefore, requiring the use of electric heavy-duty trucks is not economically feasible.
In regard to GHG offsets, maintains its position that carbon offsets are not an appropriate or preferred mitigation measure for this Project, based on the Project’s specific circumstances and CEQA’s requirements for effective, enforceable mitigation. As detailed in the response and court cases referenced below, while the purchasing of carbon credits as a mitigation has been found to be compliant with CEQA, there is still uncertainty over how these measures can be implemented in a way to ensure the enforceability and measurability of the offset mitigation measures.
Comment L2.4: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not support the claim that it would be infeasible to transition to an all electric truck fleet. The comment suggests that the City could enter into an agreement with the Applicant or tenant to utilize electric trucks to the maximum extent feasible or to install chargers for heavy duty trucks to charge once an electric fleet becomes more readily available.
Response L2.4: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not already disclosed in the EIR or evidence that not all feasible mitigation has been included in the Draft EIR. In regard to the infeasibility of requiring a full electric heavy-duty truck fleet, the commenter is referred to Response L2.3. Further, as discussed in Response L2.3, transitioning even part of the truck fleet to electric would be economically infeasible and, further yet, could not be supported by the existing electrical grid. Based on a news article provided by the Energy News Network, Southern California Edison and other electricity providers could take approximately 10 years to properly upgrade existing distribution systems and substations to power truck-charging stations, which would render the use of any electric heavy-duty truck by the Project as technologically infeasible. Nevertheless, the Project would provide electric prewiring at dock doors pursuant to 2022 Title 24 requirements, which would allow for the installation of future truck charging infrastructure should electric heavy-duty trucks become economically and technologically feasible.
Comment L2.5: This comment states that the determination for the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego does not apply to the proposed Project because the determination is based on the specific mitigation measures referencing the cap-and-trade program which extends beyond CEQA mitigation requirements. The comment states that carbon offset can be used to mitigate GHG emissions as long as they adhere to CEQA’s mitigation standards. The proposed Project is not regulated under cap-and-trade, and by using a carbon registry to track offsets it can be ensured that credits have not been claimed by anyone else, so there are no limitations on the effects of offsets as mitigation.
Response L2.5: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant impact not already disclosed in the EIR or evidence that not all feasible mitigation has been included in the Draft EIR. The comment incorrectly implies that the Final EIR stated that carbon offset mitigation does not comply with CEQA. Response O2.7 of the Final EIR acknowledges that the Golden Door court decision is not a “blanketed prohibition on using carbon offsets”. However, as also stated in the response, the court did not provide any clarification on how to prescribe a valid mitigation measure that requires carbon offsets. In Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, the court held that while carbon offset mitigation measures may be appropriate under CEQA, agencies must ensure that such measures are adequately supported by substantial evidence, and that the mitigation is meaningful, enforceable, and capable of effectively addressing the project’s environmental impacts. Specifically, the court emphasized that "vague or uncertain mitigation measures are insufficient under CEQA," and that mitigation strategies must be fully enforceable, not deferred, and supported by clear, verifiable mechanisms (Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2021 WL 6050624, at *16).
In light of this case, relying on carbon offsets, despite their potential use under CEQA, may not provide the level of certainty, enforceability, and direct emissions reduction required by law. Carbon offsets are often difficult to verify and can face issues related to their additionality and long-term effectiveness. In addition,
14.A.
9 it has yet to be seen if the purchasing of off-site credits can directly reduce impacts associated with the Project, especially for credits purchased outside of the country. This concern is particularly relevant given the preference for mitigation measures that provide direct, on-the-ground reductions in GHG emissions that can be more easily monitored, enforced, and implemented. While the Golden Door case acknowledges the potential for carbon offsets to be used as applicable mitigation under CEQA, it does not mandate their use. The City has determined that relying on carbon offsets would present challenges in meeting the standards set forth by both Golden Door and Sierra Club v. County of San Diego and has determined that due to that, mitigation requiring carbon offsets is unenforceable and does not effectively reduce Project GHG emissions or associated impacts.
Comment L2.6: This comment states that there are several organizations that can help ensure and track the purchasing of carbon credit if the City is concerned with the feasibility of implementing such mitigation measures. The comment states that the City is required to mitigate to the furthest extent possible, which includes the purchasing of offset carbon credits if there are remaining Project emissions after implementation of feasible on-site mitigation measures.
Response L2.6: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. While the City recognizes the existence of such programs, it maintains its position that carbon offsets are not an appropriate or preferred mitigation measure for this Project, based on the Project’s specific circumstances and CEQA’s requirements for effective, enforceable mitigation. As detailed in the response and court cases referenced above, while the purchasing of carbon credits as a mitigation has been found to be compliant with CEQA, there is still uncertainty over how these measures can be implemented in a way to ensure the enforceability and measurability of the offset mitigation measures. While the commenter asserts that there are “many instances of genuine, quantifiable, additional, and verifiable offsets” the commenter does not provide any such examples of these measures being implemented. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. As detailed previously, the Draft EIR includes 10 specific GHG mitigation measures to reduce emissions. The commenter does not provide additional data or specific measures for consideration or incorporation under this specific comment to reduce these emissions. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment L2.7: This comment states that the Final EIR and Draft EIR did not incorporate all feasible mitigation as the lead agency has not shown that further measures are infeasible. The comment concludes by requesting to receive updates on the progress of the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21092.2.
Response L2.7: The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR evaluation. The commenter’s concerns were addressed above in Responses L2.2 through L2.6. In reviewing the above listed comments and making the appropriate revisions, when necessary, no significant new information was incorporated, and further, the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR accurately reflect the proposed Project and subsequent potential environmental impacts. Therefore, according to CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, Draft EIR recirculation would not be warranted.
14.A.
1 Date: December 2, 2024
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, [email protected]
Site: Newland Simpson Road Project
Subject: Responses to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) This memo contains responses to comments related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City of Hemet received on November 30, 2024, prior to the City’s Planning Commission meeting on December 3, 2024 for which the Project is on the agenda. It should be noted that these comments have been previously submitted in a comment letter to the Draft EIR, and responded to in the Final EIR, as detailed below.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
14.A.
2 Letter L1: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) (3 pages) Late Comment letter
14.A.
3
14.A.
4
14.A.
5 Response to Letter L1: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), dated November 30, 2024
This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment L1.1: This comment states that the letter is to serve as a further comment in addition to previous comments submitted by GSEJA. The comment states that the CalEnviroScreen Information is a mapping tool that identifies pollution burden of census tracts. The comment states that the Project site census tract is in the 69th percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 57th percentile. In terms of ozone, this census tract is in the 98th percentile, and traffic is in the 82nd percentile.
Response L1.1: The comment provides information about the existing setting of the census tract and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. This comment was raised as Comment O3.7 in the Final EIR and responded to as Response O3.7 (on pages 2-215 through 2- 217) of the Final EIR. As detailed in these Final EIR responses to comments, the existing pollution burden of the Project vicinity is described in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality. Table 5.3-2 provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (SRA 24 Perris Valley, SRA 25 Elsinore Valley, and SRA 23 Metropolitan Riverside County). Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM2.5 federal standard had 5 exceedances in 2020, 13 exceedances in 2021, and 0 exceedances in 2022. While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.
CalEnviroScreen is a general policy too and it is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. In addition, the photo provided in the comment letter does not show the Project site but shows the screening levels for the “Tracy Costco Depot Annex”, which is located approximately 2.25 miles west of the Project site in the unincorporated community of Winchester. The comment incorrectly asserts that the census tract is in the 69th percentile regarding pollution and 57th percentile for pollution burden. The image of the CalEnviroScreen Map provided in the comment letter shows that the area is actually within the 48th percentile for pollution and 27th percentile for pollution burden, which is far below what the commenter assumed. In addition, the census tract is actually in the 91st percentile for ozone and the 32nd percentile for traffic, compared to the 98th and 82nd percentile as listed by the commenter. Thus, the data provided in the comment letter is not accurate for the Project site. The EIR provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the Project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin.
As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, pollutant emissions associated with operation of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Construction of the proposed Project would generate regional emissions that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold for VOCs and NOx. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 to reduce the construction NOx and VOCs emissions. These measures would be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx and VOCs emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ1 and AQ-2.
14.A.
6 Also, a Mobile Source Construction Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction. The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.55 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.
An Operational Diesel Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavyduty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the Project. The Draft EIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 1.47 in one million for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.09 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be less than
0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the Draft EIR determined that the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project for both construction and operation is calculated to be 1.29, below the threshold of 10. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents from construction and operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
The Draft EIR also included a long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis on page 5.3-28 which determined Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the Draft EIR, the Project would not impact nearby residences or schools.
Comment L1.2: This comment states that the air quality of the area should be considered, and that the City should make environmentally responsible decisions based on the CalEnviroScreen data. The comment asserts that this is sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts from development of another warehouse. The comment states that development is necessary for further economic growth in our current society, but that the local population should not suffer further air quality burdens. The comment states that the EIR is flawed and should be redrafted and recirculated for public review.
Response L1.2: The comment does not provide any specific issue related to the analysis or findings within the EIR or provide any substantial evidence of a new or increased environmental impact not addressed in the EIR. The comment does not detail the type of additional environmental analysis that assertedly should be included. CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. As detailed in the previous response, the EIR provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is appropriate due to the Project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin.
The comment does not identify any of the conditions that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF HEMET
HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADOPTION OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-003 TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MIXED USE TO
BUSINESS PARK FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK;
AND CONCURRENTLY APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 22-006 TO CONSTRUCT TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS, TOTALING 1,192,418 SQUARE FEET,
ANCILLARY TRUCK TRAILER LOT, ASSOCIATED ONSITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800, BUILDING HEIGHT
EXCEPTION, AND PARKING VARIANCE 24-003.
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003) Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38800, and Variance (VAR 24-003) for the Project was duly filed for consideration on October 27, 2022 with the following details:
Applicant: Newland Capital Group
Property Owner: HSL Hemet Land LLC
Project Location: Southwestern portion of the City of Hemet to the southwest and southeast of the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road. APNs: 465-140-043 and 465-140-042
Site Area: 74.88 Gross Acres (71.11 Net Acres)
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Newland Simpson Project”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the final reviewing authority for proposed General Plan Amendment, along with the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Building Height Exception, Variance and associated environmental documents when paired with a legislative action of the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of the date, time and location of the City Council hearing to consider the Project application and related requests and documents was provided by:
publication according to law in the paper of record and by mail to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025 the City Council held the noticed public hearing to consider the Project and take testimony from interested persons all of whom had the opportunity to testify to support or oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38800, Building Height Exception, and Variance (VAR 24-003); and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025 City Council of the City of Hemet held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the FEIR, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notice placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, and notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification; and
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The City Council, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited to, the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, the recommendation of the Community Development Director as provided in the staff report dated December 3, 2024 documents incorporated therein by reference, and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) within the record or provided at the public hearing of this matter, hereby finds and determines as follows:
CEQA: The approval of this project in compliance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in that on April 8, 2025 at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, recommended to the City Council adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023120462); Adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measures and Making Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which have been completed for the project.
SECTION 2: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS
The City Council adopts General Plan Amendment No. 22-003 on the following grounds:
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not cause any internal inconsistencies in the General Plan.
Finding: The current zoning of the property is Business Park (B-P) Zone, with a corresponding General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed Use. As provided in Table
2.2 General Plan Land Use Matrix, the closest corresponding zone that is similar to the Business Park (B-P) zone that is consistent with the Mixed Land Use Designation is the C-M Commercial Manufacturing zone. For comparison, the C-M Commercial Manufacturing zone is intended to reserve appropriately located areas for desirable mixes of retail or wholesale outlets and other commercial uses, warehousing and distributing uses, and light manufacturing uses, all of which will be compatible with one another. Whereas, the purpose of the Business Park (BP) Zone is to reserve sites for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses that include corporate and general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and new technology, which is consistent with the proposed use.
Furthermore, as outlined in Chapter 2 (2.6.7) of the Land Use Element, the Project site is located within the Warren Avenue Mixed-Use Area #4, which is described as an area suitable for light industrial uses as a component to the overall Mixed-Use Plan Area.
The anticipated land use identified in the General Plan for the Warren Avenue Mixed Use Area #4 includes 25% Retail/Commercial, 40% Commercial Office/Medical/Light Industrial, 30% Residential, and 5% of Open Space. The General Plan envisioned the processing of a Specific Plan for the entire Mixed-Use Area #4. However, it is unlikely that one Specific Plan could be implemented due to ownership conflicts. The Warren
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Avenue Mixed Use Area #4 consists of approximately 248.5 gross acres. The subject Project Area is approximately 74.88 gross acres (30% of total acreage) of the Warren Avenue Mixed Use Area #4 would still be consistent with the general plan land use assumptions for Light Industrial, including 70% remaining acreage or 173 acres available for other mixed use as prescribed within Mixed Use Area #4. The General Plan Amendment would also create consistency with the properties current zoning of Business Park (B-P). Therefore, this criterion has been met.
2. The proposed amendment reduces internal inconsistencies in the General Plan.
Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment create consistency with the current Zoning of the property and the General Plan, without creating an internal inconsistency with the assumptions analyzed in the 2012 and 2018 General Plan Comprehensive Update.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Finding: The General Plan Amendment is a concurrent application to Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map (MAP 23-008), Building Height Exception and Variance (VAR 24-003) for Newland Simpson Road Project involving a request for approval to construct two new industrial buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet (SF), a trailer parking lot, and related improvements. The Project includes a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (SCH # 2023120462) to serve as the environmental review for the proposed Newland Simpson Road Project (proposed Project) in accordance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.
4. That proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the overall goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed amendment implements the following General Plan policies and implementation measures:
a. LU-15.1 Balance of Land Uses. Through the General Plan land use and zoning maps, establish a balance of land use opportunities for jobs, housing, and services within the community that help achieve the mobility, access, open space, and air quality goals and policies of the City.
b. LU-1.2: Job Creation. Promote job growth within Hemet by establishing land use patterns that encourage commercial and industrial growth opportunities, improve the City’s job-housing balance, reduce commute distance and time, lower vehicle emissions, and provide economic growth and stability for all segments of the City’s population.
c. LU1.9: Consistency with Land Use Districts: Require new infill development to be in conformance with. the land use character and intention of each land use District established in the General Plan and implementing specific plans, ordinances, and design guidelines.
d. LU9.6: Employment Center Focus. Focus the majority of the land area within West Hemet to accommodate employment based uses including business parks, office, clean industrial and high tech, light manufacturing, medical, regional and community commercial, hospitality, education and professional schools, and other employmentgenerating uses to build a stronger, healthier City economy.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
e. LU11.1: Attract New Businesses. Support existing businesses and seek to attract new business and industries which strengthen and diversify Hemet’s tax revenue base, improve wage and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities, and employ the resident labor force, goals, and policies. That the type, intensity, sensitivity and operating characteristics of the proposed use, and the manner in which they will be located on the site, are compatible with existing land uses, the character of established neighborhoods, or planned development in the vicinity.
f. LU11.4: Industrial Land. Retain industrial land for business that provides jobs for manufacturing and processing of goods, research and design, and other uses that create local revenue sources and employment opportunities. g. Goal LU11. Attract New Business. Support existing businesses and seek to attract new business and industries which strengthen and diversify Hemet’s tax revenue base, improve wage and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities and employ the resident labor work force.
SECTION 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-42.5 and in light of the record before it including the staff report dated April 8, 2025 and all evidence and testimony heard at the public hearing of this item, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located; and
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 8
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Finding: The Project proposes the development of two new concrete tilt up warehouse and distribution buildings with an associated truck trailer parking area on approximately
74.88 gross acres (71.11 net acres) of land located in the City of Hemet. Building 1, located on the westernmost parcel, is proposed as an approximately 883,080 square foot (SF) warehouse building (inclusive of an approximately 44,154 SF office component) and Building 2, located in the center of the Project site between Building 1 and the truck trailer parking area across Warren Road, is proposed as an approximately 309,338 SF warehouse building (inclusive of an approximately 15,467 SF office component). The truck trailer parking area located on the easternmost parcel of the Project site, across Warren Road from Buildings 1 and 2, would include 160 truck trailer parking stalls.
The purpose of the Business Park (BP) Zone is to reserve appropriately located areas as shown on the zoning map to provide sites for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses that include corporate and general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and new technology. Businesses located within the Business Park zone are generally located on large parcels in a campus-like setting with attractive landscaping and architectural design. The BP zone is consistent with the business park, industrial, and certain identified mixed use designations of the general plan. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Finding: The Project proposes the development of two new concrete tilt up warehouse and distribution buildings with an associated truck trailer parking area on approximately
74.88 gross acres (71.11 net acres) of land located in the City of Hemet. Building 1, located on the westernmost parcel, is proposed as an approximately 883,080 squarefoot (SF) warehouse building (inclusive of an approximately 44,154 SF office component) and Building 2, located in the center of the Project site between Building 1 and the truck trailer parking area across Warren Road, is proposed as an approximately 309,338 SF warehouse building (inclusive of an approximately 15,467 SF office component). The truck trailer parking area located on the easternmost parcel of the Project site, across Warren Road from Buildings 1 and 2, would include 160 truck trailer parking stalls.
The Business Park (BP) zoned property is a vacant piece of land, located on either side of Warren Road and south of Simpson Road on approximately 74.88 gross acres. The applicant requests approval to construct two single-story warehouse buildings and a truck trailer parking lot. Building One, is approximately 883,080 square feet and Building two is approximately 309,338 square feet buildings approximately 60 feet in height, including office space, loading docks, and associated vehicle and truck trailer parking spaces. Building one warehouse and distribution building would include approximately
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
838,926 SF of warehouse space and 44,154 SF of office space and Building Two approximately 293,871 SF of warehouse space and approximately 15,467 SF of office space on 74.88 gross acres include site landscaping, Improvements security fencing and walls, sidewalks, site and roadway improvements, utility connections, implementation of storm water facilities, and pavement of parking areas and driveways.
Employee parking would be served from Simpson Road. Truck access will be served from Simpson Road.
The project has been designed to be in compliance with the development and performance standards of the Business Park (BP) zone, building configuration, setbacks, building height, lot coverage, floor area ratio maximums, landscape buffering, and site wall screening of loading areas. In addition, the project requires compliance with minimum lighting standards, and parking requirements. The design of the project provides vehicular access in a manner that directs truck traffic away from residential neighborhoods. The conditions of approval and project mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed use will be operated and maintained in a manner that will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within the vicinity. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
3. That the use and operation is consistent with the General Plan elements, goals, and policies; and
Finding: The applicant is requesting approval to of a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Mixed Use (MU) land use designation to Business Park (B-P),
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
consistent with the current BP zoning designation for the site. The subject property is designated as Business Park in the Hemet General Plan designation. The Business Park designation provides for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses. Suitable uses include corporate and general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and light manufacturing. Ancillary support commercial uses, restaurants, and hospitality uses intended to serve the business community may also be permitted. Pursuant to Section 90-1043 warehouses and product fulfillment centers greater than 400,000 square feet are a permitted use with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed development is consistent with the following General Plan element goals and policies.
LU-1.2: Job Creation. Promote job growth within Hemet by establishing land use patterns that encourage commercial and industrial growth opportunities, improve the City’s job-housing balance, reduce commute distance and time, lower vehicle emissions, and provide economic growth and stability for all segments of the City’s population.
LU1.9: Consistency with Land Use Districts: Require new infill development to be in conformance with. the land use character and intention of each land use District established in the General Plan and implementing specific plans, ordinances, and design guidelines.
LU9.6: Employment Center Focus. Focus the majority of the land area within West Hemet to accommodate employment based uses including business parks, office, clean industrial and high tech, light manufacturing, medical, regional and community
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 12
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
commercial, hospitality, education and professional schools, and other employmentgenerating uses to build a stronger, healthier City economy.
LU11.1: Attract New Businesses. Support existing businesses and seek to attract new business and industries which strengthen and diversify Hemet’s tax revenue base, improve wage and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities, and employ the resident labor force, goals, and policies. That the type, intensity, sensitivity and operating characteristics of the proposed use, and the manner in which they will be located on the site, are compatible with existing land uses, the character of established neighborhoods, or planned development in the vicinity.
LU11.4: Industrial Land. Retain industrial land for business that provides jobs for manufacturing and processing of goods, research and design, and other uses that create local revenue sources and employment opportunities.
Goal LU11. Attract New Business. Support existing businesses and seek to attract new business and industries which strengthen and diversify Hemet’s tax revenue base, improve wage and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities and employ the resident labor work force.
4. That the type, intensity, sensitivity and operating characteristics of the proposed use, and the manner in which they will be located on the site, are compatible with existing land uses, the character of established neighborhoods, or planned development in the vicinity.
Finding: Surrounding land uses include vacant Business Park (BP) zoned land to the north, vacant land designated Open Space – General to the south, vacant land
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 13
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
designated Mixed Use to the east and vacant land designated Low Density Residential to the west. The project has been designed to be in compliance with the development and performance standards of the Business Park (BP) zone, building configuration, setbacks, building height, lot coverage, floor area ratio maximums, landscape buffering, and site wall screening of loading areas. In addition, the project requires compliance with minimum lighting standards, and parking requirements. The design of the project provides vehicular access in a manner that directs truck traffic away from residential neighborhoods. The conditions of approval and project mitigations measures will ensure that the operating characteristics of the proposed will be compatible with existing land uses and established neighborhoods.
SECTION 4: SUBDIVISION MAP ACT FINDINGS
In accordance with Hemet Municipal Code § 70-133 and Government Code § 66473.1, § 66473.5 and § 66474, the City Council, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited to the Planning Division’s staff report and all documents incorporated by reference therein, the City’s General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, standards for public streets and facilities, and the City’s Commercial Design Guidelines and any other evidence within the record or provided at the public hearing of this matter, hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the government code.
Finding: The 71.11 net acre site with two new industrial buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet (SF), a trailer parking lot, and related improvements. Entitlements for the Project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 14
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
use designation from Mixed Use (MU) under Figure 2.1 of the Hemet General Plan Land Use Plan to Business Park (B-P), consistent with the current Business Park (B-P) zoning for the site. Entitlements also include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan Review from the City of Hemet to construct two new warehouse buildings totaling 1,192,418 SF, an ancillary trailer parking lot, and related site improvements and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to split the site into two separate parcels, one for each warehouse building. The property is not located within a Specific Plan. The conditions of approval shall ensure that the use and operation is consistent with the general plan, goals, and policies.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
Finding: This site is not a designated specific plan area. The Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to subdivide APN 465-140-043 into two separate parcels, one for each proposed warehouse building, resulting in a total of three parcels for the Project site. Entitlements for the Project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P).
This will create consistency with the current Business Park (B-P) zoning for the site. The site is in Mixed-Use Area #4 (MU-4) is a mixed-use area is expected to become a vibrant area featuring residential, commercial, and industrial opportunities that enables the continued westward growth of the City.
The Mixed-Use designation allows for an intensity and variety of uses such as commercial, including light industrial. The BP-Business Park land use designation
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 15
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
provides for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses intended for creation of an employment base. Suitable uses include corporate and general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and light manufacturing. Ancillary support commercial uses, restaurants, and hospitality uses intended to serve the business community may also be permitted. The proposed design is consistent with the Business Park (B-P) Development Standards. The design and construction of all improvements have been conditioned to be in conformance with adopted City standards, ordinances, and general plan. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
Finding: The subject site is in the southwestern portion of the City of Hemet is currently undeveloped and utilized for farming activities with existing irrigation infrastructure and roadway. The Project site encompasses approximately 74.88 gross acres (71.11 net acres). The Project site is comprised of two parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 465-140-043 (62.91 net acres) and 465-140-042 (8.20 net acres) that are located southwest and southeast of the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road, respectively. Further the Project site is located within Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 2 West, within the Winchester United States Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5- minute topographic quadrangle.
Access and circulation for the proposed Project includes a total of six driveways serving Building 1, Building 2, and the Trailer Parking Lot. Building 1 would be accessible via Simpson Road from two driveways for trucks and passenger vehicles, each 40 feet in
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
width, and one 26-foot-wide driveway for passenger vehicles. Internal circulation would be provided by 26-foot to 40-foot drive aisles.
The Project would construct onsite water lines that would connect to the existing 24-inch water main in Simpson Road. In addition, the Project would construct onsite recycled water lines that would connect to the 36-inch recycled water main in Simpson Road.
The Project would construct onsite sewer lines that would connect to a new 24-inch sewer main in Simpson Road for 1,650 linear feet, which would also be constructed as part of the Project. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s (RCFC&WCD) standards and City of Hemet Master Flood Control and Drainage Plan.
Drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows. Preliminary Geotechnical, Hydrology, Water Quality Management Plan, Grading Plans, and complete site analysis has been reviewed for compliance with development requirements. The site is suitable for the proposed development. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Finding: Entitlements for the Project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P), consistent with the current Business Park (B-P) zoning for the site. The BP-Business Park designation provides for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 17
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
office uses, and allows for a 60% floor area ratio (FAR). The Project area is 74.88 gross acre (71.11 Net Acres). The proposed development includes two new industrial buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet, a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 38% which is far below the allowable.
Additionally, on June 13, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the proposed the General Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with the 2017 Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to conditions of approval. The site is located within Compatibility Zone E, where non-residential intensity is not restricted. The applicant does not propose any uses prohibited or discouraged in Compatibility Zone E.
Therefore, this criterion has been met.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Finding: The Project site is flat and currently utilized for farming activities. The Project site is surrounded by agricultural land to the north and west, and Salt Creek Channel to the south and east. Biological surveys were conducted. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a total of 53 sensitive species of plants has the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Of that, a total of 18 plant
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 18
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
species are listed as state and/or federally Threatened, Endangered, Rare, or Candidate species; or are 1B.1 listed plants on the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory.
No special-status plant species were observed onsite during the field survey.
Additionally, based on habitat requirements for these species and the availability and quality of onsite habitat, and the routine onsite disturbances, it was determined that no special-status plant species have potential to occur onsite and are all presumed absent.
Also, according to the CNDDB, a total of 61 sensitive species of animals has the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Of that, 12 special-status wildlife species were identified as having a potential to occur in the vicinity. None of the species were observed onsite during biological surveys.
Although the Project site consists of active agricultural lands that are continually disturbed, the habitat assessment determined that the Project site provides suitable burrows/nesting opportunities for burrowing owl. As such, focused protocol surveys were conducted for burrowing owl pursuant to the requirements of the Western Riverside MSHCP from July 8, 2022 to July 29, 2022. The surveys found that no burrowing owl are present within the Project site; however, a pair of burrowing owls are present within the surrounding 500-foot buffer area within the Salt Creek Channel.
The Project site has not been identified as occurring within a wildlife corridor or linkage.
Furthermore, the Project site consists of active agricultural fields surrounded by agricultural lands, residential development, and busy roads. There are no riparian
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 19
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
corridors, creeks, or useful patches of natural areas within or connecting the site to a recognized corridor or linkage.
The Project site is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 0.25-mile south of the Project site for Coastal California gnatcatcher within the Domenigoni Mountains. The Project site is located within the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or Cell Group. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
Finding: The project includes two approximately 60-foot-tall industrial buildings that would support warehouse, distribution, and office uses. The proposed building (Building 1) on the westernmost portion of the Project would consist of approximately 883,080 SF, inclusive of approximately 838,926 SF of warehouse space and approximately 44,154 SF of office space and 144 dock doors. Building 1 would result in a FAR of 0.47.
The proposed Project would develop the 18.39 net acre, central portion of the Project site with an approximately 309,338 SF high-cube warehouse building (Building 2).
Building 2 would include approximately 293,871SF of warehouse space and approximately 15,467 SF of office space and include 50 dock-high doors and two gradelevel doors. Building 2 would result in a FAR of 0.39. Finally, the proposed Project would develop the approximately 8.5 net acre easternmost portion of the Project site
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 20
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
with an ancillary truck trailer parking lot and an approximately 64,078 SF detention basin.
The design and construction of all improvements have been conditioned to be in conformance with adopted City standards and ordinances. The City’s ordinances, codes and standards have been created based on currently accepted standards and practices for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That 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. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Finding: As conditioned, by the Public Works/Engineering Department, the Applicant is responsible for resolving any conflicts with existing or proposed easements. All easement(s) of record and proposed easements shall be shown on the grading plan,
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 21
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
site plan and other improvement plans. Easements of record not shown on the approved site plan exhibit shall be relinquished or relocated as necessary for construction as shown on the approved site plan. Portions of the site which are affected by any easements which cannot be relinquished or relocated as necessary to resolve conflicts with the easement holders’ rights may be required to be redesigned. Final clearance may be required from easement holders prior to approval of final plans.
Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary easements required for the project to be constructed and provide for proper drainage as may be applicable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8. The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
Finding: Taking into consideration local climate and the existing contour and configuration of the site and its surroundings, the size and configuration of proposed buildings within the site have been arranged, to the greatest extent feasible with orientation of the structures to take advantage of natural shade, or to take advantage of prevailing breezes.
SECTION 5: BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION
The applicant is requesting a building height exception pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1046(c)(3) to allow warehouse buildings that exceed the standard maximum building height permitted in the Business Park (B-P) zone. Under current
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 22
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
zoning standards, the maximum allowable building height is 55 feet. The proposed warehouse buildings (Building 1 and Building 2) would have maximum parapet heights ranging from 56 to 60 feet, representing an increase of up to 10 percent above the allowable height limit. Pursuant to HMC Section 90-1046(c)(3), the reviewing authority may authorize a 10 percent increase in maximum building height for structures that are set back a minimum of 100 feet from any residential use or residentially zoned property, excluding signs.
Finding: This standard has been met.
Building 1 : 220’ feet setback to Single-Family Residential Zone/ El Fuego Road.
Building 1: 250’ to setback Mixed Use to North
Building 2: 160’ setback to Mixed Use to the North
Building 2: 1,200’ distance to Residential Zone to the northeast SECTION 6: VARIANCE
Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-44.5 and in light of the record before it including the staff report dated December 3, 2024 and all evidence and testimony heard at the public hearing of this item, the City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. There are unique physical circumstances applicable to the subject land, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. If the approving body finds that the
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 23
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
physical circumstances are similar to other parcels in the zone, such circumstances are not unique and a variance shall not be granted; and
Finding: A: The applicant is requesting a variance from the standard passenger vehicle parking space requirements. The unusual triangular shape, which is attributed to the curvilinear design of Warren Road, and 45-degree angle of the Salt Creek Channel which abuts the property, site configuration of the parcels further exacerbates the difficulty of site design for providing the required parking spaces. There are no other properties similar to the subject property that is comparable.
2. The strict application of zoning standards deprives the property of the right to use the land in a manner enjoyed by other conforming property in the vicinity under identical zoning standards; and
Finding: A total of eight (8) parcels of land in the Hemet City limits, totaling 385 acres are zoned Business Park (BP). With the exception of the Kirby Industrial Warehouse development located on Kirby Street, south of Acacia Avenue, which is currently under construction, all other properties in the Business Park (B-P) zone remain vacant. The unique triangular configuration of the property poses a physical constraint to development, which cannot be compared to by other properties. Whereas the majority of the Kirby Project site is rectangular in shape with minimal geometric restrictions. It is also important to note, that the parking standards for warehouse development in the City do not include offices and other incidental operations, similar to the parking standards for manufacturing establishments as illustrated below. If the parking
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 24
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
requirements for warehouse included offices and other incidental operations, the parking requirement for this project would be in compliance.
Use Off-street Parking
Required
1. Manufacturing or
industrial establishments,
including offices and
other incidental
operations on the same
site
1 space for each 500
square feet of gross floor
area
3. Warehouse, wholesale or
storage building
1 space for each 1,000
square feet of gross floor
area
3. The approval of a variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges which other conforming properties in the vicinity do not enjoy under identical zoning standards.
Finding: A total of eight (8) parcels of land in the Hemet City limits, totaling 385 acres are zoned Business Park (BP). With the exception of the Kirby Industrial Warehouse development located on Kirby Street, south of Acacia Avenue, which is currently under construction, all other properties in the Business Park (B-P) zone remain vacant. The unique triangular configuration of the property poses a physical constraint to development, which cannot be compared to by other properties.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 25
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Furthermore, the Project proposes to construct two high-cube warehouses. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) describes High Cube warehouses as follows: “Highcube warehouses have at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, a ceiling height of 24 feet or more and are used primarily for the storage and /or consolidation of manufactured goods, and provisions for automation. Several cities within the Inland Empire have adopted parking codes which for high-cube warehouse parking at a significantly lower parking rate. Comparatively, as provided in the Table below, in the surrounding Cities of San Jacinto, Menifee, and Perris, the average parking required for a warehouse development of this size would be 629 passenger parking spaces, which is significantly lower than the City of Hemet’s parking requirements for a warehouse building. Therefore, the current parking criteria is comparatively more restrictive than industry standards, combined with the unique physical constraints, the approval of the variance would not result in constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 26
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SECTION 7: CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the following as recommended by the City Council:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003) Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38800, Building Height Exception, and Variance (VAR 24- 003) as shown in Exhibits B through Exhibit D, and Conditions of Approval as provided in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective on April 8, 2025
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th Day of April, 2025.
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 27
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
_________________________
Jackie Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
14.A.
CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 8th Day of April, 2025, and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
CITY OF HEMET
DRAFT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: December 3, 2024
CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: April 8, 2025
PROJECT NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 22-003), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 22-006), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (MAP 23-008) & VARIANCE (VAR 24-003)
APPLICANT: Newland Capital Group
OWNER: HSL Hemet Land
LOCATION: The intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road.
Note: Any conditions revised at a hearing will be noted by strikeout (for deletions) and/or underline (for additions), and any newly added conditions will be added at the end of all conditions regardless of the Department originating the condition.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The following conditions of approval were approved by the City Council as standard conditions of approval for all projects. Questions regarding compliance with these conditions should be directed to the Community Development Department (Planning Division) at (951) 765-2375.
General Requirements:
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 22-003), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 22-006), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 & VARIANCE(VAR 24-003) shall become null and void on April 8, 2027 (two calendar years from the date of approval), unless use in reliance on the approved Conditional Use Permit is established prior to the expiration date. A time extension may be granted by the Planning Commission in accordance with Hemet Municipal Code, provided a written request for a time extension is submitted the Planning Division prior to the expiration date. No formal notice of expiration will be given by the City.
2. Approval of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 22-003), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 22-006), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 & VARIANCE (VAR 24-003) shall become effective on April 8, 2025.
3. The conditions of approval of this project shall supersede all conflicting notations, specifications, dimensions, typical sections, and the like, which may be shown on the project development plans.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
4. This project site shall be developed in accordance with the approved plan(s) and the conditions contained herein.
5. This project shall comply with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable Local, State and Federal laws and regulations in effect at the time of the building permit application and/or time of recordation, including the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and City and State Accessibility Requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24).
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be subject to all applicable development fees at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application for the tenant improvement.
7. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, law suits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the any action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in defense of the Action. (City Council Resolution No. 3693)
8. Construction activity shall meet the requirements of the Hemet Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article II.
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS
The following conditions of approval are project specific and were recommended by the Planning Division. Questions regarding compliance with these conditions should be directed to the City of Hemet Planning Division at (951) 765-2375.
9. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, pursuant to GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 22-003), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 22-006), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 & VARIANCE(VAR 24-003), all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
10. Any uses not specifically permitted as part of, or not determined to be in substantial conformance by the Community Development Director shall require submittal and approval of an application for the modification of the Conditional Use Permit.
11. Construction activity shall only occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May. Saturday construction shall be permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Sunday construction shall be prohibited. Exceptions to these standards may be granted only by the Hemet Building Official and/or the Hemet City Council. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise and construction complaints.
12. All lighting provided in connection with such facilities shall be LED lights or equivalent, installed and shielded to confine direct rays of artificial light within the boundaries of the parking lot. Light standards shall not exceed 25 feet in height and shall be located so as not to interfere with parking lot landscaping. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, a photometric plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division demonstrating compliance with condition.
13. An anti-graffiti coating and/or shall be provided up to 10 feet on all block walls and stucco covered walls and written verification of its application from the developer shall be provided to the Planning Division. The type and specification shall be listed with the wall plan details submitted to the Building and Safety Division during building plan check.
14. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees.
15. Signage is not approved as part of this Project. A master signage program shall be submitted to the Community Development Department (Planning Division) for review and approval consistent with the Hemet Municipal Code. The applicant shall submit plans for a Permanent Sign Permit to the Building and Safety Division as approved by the Planning Division.
16. A perimeter fencing and wall plan shall be submitted to the Building Department for building permit issuance, subject to review by the Community Development Department (Planning Division). Proposed wrought iron fencing located along the frontage of Simpson Road and Warren Road, shall be setback behind the required landscape buffer and parkway. The perimeter wall located on the west property line adjacent to residential zone shall include integral colored block pattern, anti-graffiti coating, natural earth tone colors selected from the approved architectural colors and materials palette for the development with architectural relief every 100 feet.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Operational Conditions
17. During business operations, trucks shall be turned off when not in use. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit an Employee Truck Driver Management Plan to the Planning Division identifying restriction of idling trucks within the facility. Strategies shall be incorporated to reduce the idling time of diesel engines through alternative technologies such as IdleAire, electrification of truck parking, and alternative energy sources to allow diesel engines to be completely turned off.
18. No loading or unloading is allowed within drive aisles, parking areas, or on adjacent public streets. Loading areas shall be kept free of debris and clean throughout the life of the project.
19. Security surveillance cameras and equipment shall be installed to be reviewed and approved by the police department prior to permitting and installation. The equipment shall be able to record a minimum of 24 hours of operation. The facility operator shall maintain the recordings for the prior 60 days.
20. Prior to the issuance of tenant improvement building permits, the applicant shall prepare a security plan for the site. The security plan for this project shall include a comprehensive security camera system that clearly depicts the entire parking field. This security camera system shall be based in the building containing the management office for this development, or inside a security office or other place acceptable to the City of Hemet Police Department, that is accessible to law enforcement at all times of the day and night. This security camera system shall have a recording capacity to minimally save footage for the period of one month or as approved by the Police Department. The above camera surveillance system shall include LPR (License Plate Recognition) cameras installed at the entrances/exits to this project or as approved by the Police Department. LPR cameras are cameras specifically designed to read and record vehicle license plates as they enter and exit this complex. It should be noted that high quality day/night vision LPR cameras are relatively inexpensive. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of tenant improvement Building Permits. The Police Department and/or Community Development Department shall verify that the security system has been installed prior to final tenant occupancy. In addition, the trash enclosure shall be properly secured and have a lock as well as a covering to keep unauthorized persons from entering the dumpster area.
21. The owner or operator of the use shall remove or paint over any graffiti within 48 hours of the graffiti being painted or marked upon the premises. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall sign a graffiti removal property access waiver. The City shall have access to the property for the removal of the graffiti on any portion of the building or site if graffiti is not removed within 48 hours of the graffiti being painted or marked upon the premises. The property owner or business owner and or tenant shall incur any associated costs for said graffiti removal.
22. All storage of equipment and materials shall be fully contained inside the building.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
23. Storage yard for contractor equipment and materials is prohibited. Additionally, the outdoor storage of temporary accessory structures, including metal or other storage containers is prohibited.
24. Ground mounted solar energy systems is prohibited.
25. Per the Environmental Impact Report Mitigation, Monitoring and Report Program of tenant occupancy permits, the City of Hemet shall permit for warehousing and distribution purposes. Cold storage was not included in the Environmental Impact Report and is prohibited.
26. The design of dock loading doors shall minimize noise through installation of devices such as rubber seals and/or other sound reduction features, to be included with tenant improvement building plans.
27. All electrical and mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, air-conditioning units, electrical boxes, backflow preventers, and roof-mounted equipment shall be visually screened from public view. All roof-mounted air conditioning units proposed for the shall provide screening from public view via a screen enclosure that is architecturally compatible with the building. Screening material can include but is not limited to louvered roof equipment screens or panels. Screening shall be in accordance with city standards, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and in compliance with the Building Code.
Onsite Landscaping
28. An onsite landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for permitting, subject to the conditions of approval provided by the Planning Division.
29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant's landscape architect or the party responsible for preparing the landscaping and irrigation plans shall provide a compliance letter to the Building and Safety Division verifying that the landscape and the irrigation system has been installed in compliance with the approved landscape documentation package.
30. Parking lot landscaping in the business park zone shall cover 10 percent of parking area.
The final master landscape and irrigation plan calculations shall be adjusted accordingly.
31. Trees shall be planted in the required parking area at a ratio of 1 tree per 5 parking spaces.
32. In addition to the required number of street trees and parking area trees, 1 tree shall be planted for every 500 square feet of landscaping in all other areas. The final master landscape and irrigation plan calculations shall be adjusted accordingly.
33. All trees onsite shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size with 25 percent planted at 24-inch box size. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall be adjusted accordingly.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
34. A minimum of 25 percent of all landscaping areas shall be planted in shrubs. The shrub areas shall be inter-planted with non-aggressive type ground cover. Triangular spacing shall be used in row plantings of all ground cover and shrubs. This includes all on-site retention areas. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall include percentage calculations and revised accordingly.
35. Where landscaping is required, it shall consist predominantly of plant materials, except for necessary walks and drives. Planted areas, where prescribed, shall be landscaped exclusively with live plant materials.
36. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (CCR, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.) and Hemet Municipal Code Article XLVIII Landscaping and Irrigation.
37. The final landscape and irrigation plan shall include water use calculations in accordance with Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1706.
38. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all landscaping shall be installed and operational with an automatic irrigation system, including automatic timers.
Offsite Landscaping in the Right-Of-Way
39. An offsite (right-of-way) landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Public Works (Engineering Division) for review and approval, subject to conditions of approval provided by Public Works.
40. Prior to issuance of an off-site landscape permit, a one-year Faithful Performance bond, (equal in value to ten percent (10%) of the cost of the installed landscaping) shall be posted to guarantee installation, plant health, and established growth. The bond may be reduced by the City after installation has been approved.
Economic Development Division
41. Developer to fund or construct a new “Welcome to the City of Hemet” monument sign that is to be no smaller in size that 3’ tall x 5’ wide. Developer to abide by all city signage guidelines; and either payment or construction start of the signage shall be made prior to occupancy.
42. Developer to donate or construct $50,000 of artwork that celebrates the City of Hemet’s culture and history as outlined in section 10 of the General Plan. Developer to coordinate with the city planner to ensure that either payment or commissioning of the artwork shall be made prior to occupancy.
43. Developer to schedule and host a job fair to be held within the city boundaries to support the hiring of Hemet residents. This job fair shall be coordinated with the city economic development manager and requires at least 4 weeks’ notice prior to the event.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
44. Developer to enhance the building’s corner office characteristics in order to tie in architectural elements of the Western Science Center at project’s sole cost.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONDITIONS
45. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
46. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.) d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
e) Highly noise-sensitive nonresidential uses.
f) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.
47. The attached “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property.
48. The project has been evaluated to construct two industrial buildings totaling 1,192,418 square feet. Any increase in building area, change in use to any higher intensity use, change in building location, or modification of the tentative parcel map lot lines and areas will require an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria, at the discretion of the ALUC Director.
49. Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the design storm, and remain
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip-rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC “LANDSCAPING NEAR AIRPORTS” brochure, and the “AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT” brochure available at RCALUC.ORG which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.
A notice sign, in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds.
Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes”. The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.
50. The project has been evaluated to construct two industrial buildings totaling 1,192,418 square feet. Any increase in building area, change in use to any higher intensity use, change in building location, or modification of the tentative parcel map lot lines and areas will require an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria, at the discretion of the ALUC Director.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
GENERAL
51. All conditions of approval shall be satisfied PRIOR to issuance of a grading permit UNLESS otherwise stated in the condition.
52. All required Civil Engineering plans and studies shall be prepared by a California licensed Professional Engineer or California Registered Professional Surveyor, as applicable, and be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All work in the public right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit issued from the Engineering department. Street lighting plans shall be prepared by a California licensed Electrical Engineer and landscape plans by a California licensed Landscape Architect.
53. Engineering plans/documents/reports shall be submitted in PDF format. Also City Engineer approved improvement plans showing City Engineer’s approval signature as well as Private Engineer’s approval signature shall be provided to Engineering Department.
54. Developer shall annex to the Citywide Community Facilities District (CFD) for maintenance and operation of drainage facilities, landscaping and street lighting prior to first certificate of occupancy.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
55. The Applicant is responsible for resolving any conflicts with existing or proposed easements. All easement(s) of record and proposed easements shall be shown on the grading plan, site plan and other improvement plans. Easements of record not shown on the approved site plan exhibit shall be relinquished or relocated as necessary for construction as shown on the approved site plan. Portions of the site which are affected by any easements which cannot be relinquished or relocated as necessary to resolve conflicts with the easement holders’ rights may be required to be redesigned. Final clearance may be required from easement holders prior to approval of final plans.
Applicant/Developer shall obtain all necessary easements required for the project to be constructed and provide for proper drainage as may be applicable to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
56. Where survey monuments exist, such monuments shall be protected or shall be referenced and reset, pursuant to Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyors Act).
57. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Hemet Municipal Code Section 82-172 which requires undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of the project. This also applies to existing overhead lines which are not over 34.5 kilovolts within and along the project frontage and between the nearest poles offsite in each direction of the project site.
58. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable developer impact fees, including but not limited to WRCOG TUMF and City of Hemet DIF at the currently adopted rate prior to issuance of a building permit.
59. Applicant/Developer shall pay Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Fee to the City at a rate of $500 per gross acre, or at the currently adopted rate.
60. The Applicant/Developer shall post, with the Engineering Department, a bond, cash deposit, or letter of credit from a financial institution subject to regulations of the State and/or Federal Government for grading that exceeds 5,000 CY.
61. No grading permit shall be issued until the entitlement cases associated with this subdivision are approved and are in effect.
62. Property owner shall require any future tenants to abide by the City of Hemet truck routes.
This includes provisions that the City of Hemet can change the truck routes throughout the City, and the tenant will direct traffic to those revised routes.
Onsite
63. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a project specific Precise Grading Plan (PGP) for approval of the City Engineer. The plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City of
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Hemet Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, City of Hemet Standard Drawings, and the City of Hemet Grading and Erosion Control Standards. As part of the Grading Plan submittal, the Owner/Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan. PGP shall incorporate construction plans for post-construction BMP facilities and features.
Grading shall conform to the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Hemet and Hemet Municipal Code Chapter 67, Grading, Sediment and Erosion Control, and all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the city of Hemet and state of California.
64. In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Building and Safety department. If an Environmental Assessment, prior to issuing a grading permit, did not previously approve either location, a Grading Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and comment and to the Building and Safety Department Director for approval. Additionally, if the movement of import/export occurs using city streets, the review and approval of the haul routes by the City Engineer will be required and a Haul Route permit issued therefore.
65. The Precise Grading shall provide that the parking lot be designed in accordance with the City of Hemet Parking Lot Design Criteria contained in the City of Hemet Standard Specification for Public Works Construction, Standards P-400 and P-401, Uniform Building Code Title 24 and in accordance with Chapter 90, Article XL of the Hemet Municipal Code. The plans shall include paving, curbs, gutters, walkways, parking lot lighting per lighting standard specifications, parking lot striping and marking, and required parking lot landscaping and planter areas.
66. The Precise Grading Plan shall provide that the trash enclosure(s) be designed in accordance with the City of Hemet Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Standards R-500 through R-503J. The location(s) and route of solid waste collection vehicles shall be approved by the City of Hemet Refuse Supervisor.
67. Lots which propose retaining walls greater than 30 inches measured from lowest finish grade will require separate permits(s).
68. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded to restrict the use of APN 465-140-042 as an accessory to APN 465-140-043, and shall require approvals by the Community Development Department (Planning Division) upon any potential change of use.
69. Applicant shall construct a 20’ access road to APN 465-140-032 at the sole cost of the applicant. The applicant shall maintain the roadway until a 20’ wide dedication is made to the City. The dedication shall be done prior to bond release.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Offsite
70. All streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Latest Edition, City of Hemet Public Works Standard Specifications, City Engineering Standards and Manuals and applicable City Standards, and all applicable laws, rules and regulations all per plans approved by the City Engineer. Project will be in substantial conformance with the existing 0.3% slope along Warren Road. This design may require additional inlets due to the street slope.
71. All driveway approaches shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Latest Edition, City of Hemet Public Works Standard Specifications, Standard Street Sections and applicable Engineering Standards C-210A, and all applicable laws, rules and regulations all per plans approved by the City Engineer. In accordance with City of Hemet Resolution No. 1783 driveway widths and locations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
72. Street AC pavement shall be designed and constructed with structural section for a Traffic Index (TI) as specified for the street classification and R-value as determined by preliminary soils investigation. The final pavement section constructed shall be calculated with the R-value of the prepared subgrade determined in-situ and TI as the final pavement section design is approved by the City Engineer. Pavement shall be a minimum thickness of AC over a minimum thickness base as specified for the street classification and type. Pavement shall be constructed in two courses, with no course being less than 1.5”. If the cap is not paved within 2 weeks, the base course shall be a minimum of 4” to support construction traffic.
73. Streetlights shall be per Street Light Plans approved by the City Engineer and all current City standards to include City’s current standard for LED lighting fixture for the respective classification of the street.
74. Existing ADA ramps, sidewalks, or other ADA paths of travel fronting the project site shall be reconstructed as necessary to meet current ADA requirements.
75. Existing City streets, which require reconstruction or other construction work within the street shall always remain open for through traffic with proper lane shifts or adequate detours, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
76. Owner/Applicant shall construct or install all improvements required in the public right-ofway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and provide as-built (record) drawings.
77. Owner/Applicant shall replace any sidewalk, curb and gutter, drive approach, AC pavement or other improvement damaged during construction as determined necessary by the City Engineer.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
78. Any offsite grading required as a part of the project will require permission from that property owner and documentation on file with the City. Any access required, whether for water or other necessities for construction, that goes through any offsite property will require permission from the offsite property owner with documentation on file with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
79. Traffic signals, if required, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Caltrans standard plans and specifications, latest edition unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
80. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare plans for all improvements in the public right-ofway for the following streets:
a) Simpson Avenue is designated as a Secondary 4U west of Warren Road and a Collector 2U east of Warren Road per the City of Hemet General Plan. The west side shall have a 47’ half-street right-of-way, and the east side shall have a 33’ half-street right-of-way. The 47’ half-street right-of-way shall continue through the intersection of Warren Road, and then taper east of the proposed driveway on Simpson Avenue. Applicant/developer shall dedicate all necessary right-of-way along the project frontage. Any gates proposed across the driveway shall be setback a minimum of 55-feet from the roadway to preclude interference with through travel while longer vehicles await gate opening. Improvements along Simpson road shall include AC pavement, striping, markings, PCC curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, parkway landscaping, irrigation, and street trees. North of the centerline the applicant shall construct a minimum of 20’ of asphalt pavement. b) Warren Road is designated as a Secondary 2U with a right-of-way of 94’ feet.
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way, if needed, to ensure 94’ right-of-way. Applicant shall construct full width street improvements including AC pavement, striping, markings, PCC curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, parkway landscaping, irrigation, and street trees.
c) Applicant shall pay fair share for the traffic signal at Warren Road and Simpson Road. d) Access to APN 465-140-032 within the 20 foot right-of-way dedication shall be paved.
Pavement structural section shall be consistent with the City of Hemet standard specifications and the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer. e) Applicant shall construct 1,000 linear feet of roadway rehabilitation improvements west along Simpson Road from the project site’s western most boundary. This shall include Grind and Overlay at a minimum, or as recommended by a geotechnical report. f) Applicant shall construct 1,000 linear feet of roadway rehabilitation improvements north along Warren Road from the project site’s northern most boundary. This shall include Grind and Overlay at a minimum, or as recommended by a geotechnical report. g) Applicant shall repair roadway pavement between Salt Creek Bridge and Domenigoni Parkway. This shall include Grind and Overlay at a minimum, or as recommended by a geotechnical report.
81. Applicant/developer shall install street trees per City standards (generally 40-feet oncenter or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer) in accordance with the City Approved Street Tree list. Additional automatic irrigation system with service for power and water from meters separate from the site will be required as directed by City public works. The applicant will include this in the annexation to a CFD.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
82. Applicant shall fund or construct 1,000 linear feet of the regional running trail along the Salt Creek Trail along project’s frontage.
83. Applicant shall contribute $50,000 to the City of Hemet for studying the Domenigoni Parkway Median Project.
84. Developer shall contribute $75,000 to the City of Hemet for the City’s Traffic Signal Synchronization Project for a radius of 2 miles of signals to the project boundaries.
Drainage/WQMP
85. The project is located within a Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Hemet Regional Master Drainage Plan area for which Area Drainage Plan (ADP) fees are payable to RCFC&WCD. The Applicant must contact RCFC&WCD located at 1955 Market St, Riverside, CA and PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO), provide proof of payment (or exemption) from RCFC&WCD.
86. Subdivider shall obtain an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD for connection to its facilities.
87. The Grading Plan shall provide for increased runoff mitigation for the of the 100-year/3- hour storm in that the 100-year, 3-hour storm event for the post-project condition is retained onsite. All storm water conveyance improvements or facilities shall be designed to handle the peak flow from a 100-year event. Calculations shall be provided for approval of the City Engineer. The report shall be prepared consistent with the Storm Drain Criteria and Drainage Design Manual.
88. All offsite flows tributary to the project site and to the project frontage along Simpson Avenue and/or Warren Road shall be analyzed. Any offsite flows that currently flow through the project site shall be intercepted and conveyed through the project or into the appropriate MDP facility per the West Hemet Master Drainage Plan. The project shall analyze the impacts of the construction of the street improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
89. Cross-lot drainage shall not be allowed. All pads shall be designed to drain to the streets, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Storm water shall be collected in an appropriate storm drain system. All drainage easements are subject to City acceptance for maintenance as determined by the City Engineer.
90. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed in accordance with the City of Hemet Storm Drain Criteria and Drainage Design Manual. Drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100-year, 1-hour storm flows. Drainage facilities outletting
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
from sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows and additionally an emergency overflow escape route shall also be provided.
91. The Southwest Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line J is located on the westerly portion of the project site, Lateral B-1 immediately adjacent to the project site within Simpson Road, and Line I at the easterly boundary of the project site. Per the response letter from RCFC&WCD, dated April 11, 2023, the project shall construct these facilities, and RCFC&WCD shall take over ownership of the facilities. The project shall coordinate with RCFC&WCD on the design of the system, and shall have approval of the storm drain improvement plans from RCFC&WCD.
92. Any storm drain systems larger than 36” that are in the public right-of-way, or are a designated MDP facility, shall be owned and maintained by RCFC&WCD.
93. Catch basins shall be design and located per the City of Hemet Storm Drain Criteria and Drainage Design Manual, Section 6.
94. All storm drain inlets shall include trash capture devices.
95. The storm water retention basins within the boundaries of project shall be maintained by property owner.
96. The Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction projects disturbing one acre or more, and shall apply for coverage under the State’s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit, current Amendment), and any more current orders. The Applicant shall provide the project specific WDID number on the Grading Plan.
97. The Developer shall submit a “Project Specific” WQMP for each phase of the development prior to issuance of any building or grading permits for approval of the City Engineer. A template for this report is indicated as ‘Exhibit A available on-line at www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us under Programs and Services, Stormwater Quality.
A final Project Specific WQMP must be approved by the City Engineer and Covenant and Agreement for Maintenance and Operation of BMP Facilities shall be entered into with the City and be recorded. This plan shall address Site Design BMPs, incorporate the applicable Source Control BMPs, incorporate Treatment Control BMPs, describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs needing long-term maintenance, and describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the BMPs. If Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary for the project, the Regional Water Quality Control Board may require additional water quality measures. A signed and notarized BMP Agreement shall be provided to the City of Hemet.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
98. A Registered Civil Engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a written certification that all the components of the approved WQMP have been satisfactory installed and constructed. Certification shall be as to grade, elevations, plantings, materials, and other elements included in the approved WQMP and include as-built drawings.
Sewer/Water
99. Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with affected utility companies and obtain any permits as necessary for the development of this project. The project is located within the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sewer and water service area. Applicant is advised to contact City of Hemet Water Department and obtain a “Will Serve” letter for both water and sewer services.
100. Applicant/developer shall comply with all relevant standards, policies and procedures and pay all fees as applicable at the time for obtaining and activating all services to serve the project.
Final Map
101. When changes to an approved Tentative Map are proposed, a Substantial Conformance Exhibit, in the same scale as the Tentative Map, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineering and Community Development Director. 102. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the subdivider shall, prior to recordation, make application for and pay for their reapportionment of` the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. 103. The subdivider shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) with the City, on forms approved by the City Attorney, whereby the applicant agrees to construct the public improvements specified therein, unless in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act all public improvements have been constructed and accepted by the agency. All public improvements shall be guaranteed by the provision of security, in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City requirements if the improvements have not been fully completed and accepted by the City. All improvements shall be guaranteed by securities for Faithful Performance, and Labor & Materials, each for 100% of the City Engineer’s approved cost estimate. Cash deposit with the City as security for subdivision monumentation. 104. The subdivider shall show on the Final map any easements required for utilities. 105. The subdivider shall show on the Final Map the dedication of all rights-of-way necessary for the construction of all drainage facilities, streets, and public utilities, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated at the intersection of Simpson Road and Warren Road to be consistent with the City of Hemet General Plan Amendment TIA 15-002.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
106. The subdivider, at its sole expense, shall obtain all rights-of-way and/or easement necessary to fully implement any portion of the approved tentative map, including public improvements prior to the City’s consideration of the final map which encompasses the particular improvement.
107. The subdivider shall comply with Subdivision Map Act Section 66436(A)(3) and shall provide “non-interference letters” (NILs) from public entities or utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
108. Final Map shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. A Title Report dated within 30 days of submittal and Subdivision Guarantee prepared for subdivision of the property, the traverse closures for the existing subdivision boundary and lots created therefrom, and copies of all applicable record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department as part of the review of the map.
109. Subdivider is required to prepare or caused to be prepared improvement plans for all public improvement for approval of the City Engineer.
110. Any easements necessary for the West Hemet MDP Facilities shall be shown on the final map or dedicated per separate instrument prior to certificate of occupancy.
Public Works
Landscaping in Right-of-Way
111. In all parkways, median strips and other areas of public right-of-way where landscaping and/or irrigation installation is required, the following requirements apply unless specifically modified in writing by the city engineer.
a. Prior to installation of any irrigation sprinkler system or landscaping within the public right-of-way, landscape plans shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval.
b. The irrigation system within the public right-of-way shall be in accordance with the City of Hemet Municipal Code.
c. Tree and planting materials within the public right-of-way shall be in accordance with Section III.8 of the City of Hemet Public Works Department Standard Specifications. Trees shall be installed 40 feet off center. (Must be 24 in. box, min. 1 ¾ caliper.
112. No Turf shall be allowed, only drought tolerant shrubs and groundcover. 113. Parkways must be free of all debris (asphalt, rocks, concrete, and trash) and existing soil must be rototilled to a depth of 4” – 6” prior to installation of plant material. 114. All planters shall receive 4” of shredded bark mulch, “forest floor” 0-2” or approved equal.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Refuse Requirements
115. The City of Hemet has an exclusive Franchise Agreement with CR&R Inc. to collect and dispose of all waste including commercial, residential and construction debris within the City of Hemet. Contact CR&R at 1-800-755-8112 to set up a solid waste collection service.
116. The waste hauler may utilize the El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and or/or the Badlands Landfill for disposal.
117. Builders must recycle and or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code.
118. AB 341 – All businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per week must make arrangements for recycling collection services with CR&R or donate, sell and/or self-haul their recyclables to a recycling facility.
• Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities. • Subscribe to a recycling service with waste hauler.
• Provide recycling service to tenants (if commercial or multi-family complex). • Demonstrate compliance with requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.
119. AB 1826 – All businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per week must make arrangements for organics collection services with CR&R or donate, sell and/or haul their recyclables and organics to a recycling yard, and shall take at least one of the following actions in order to divert organic waste from disposal:
• Source separate organic material from all other recyclables and donate or selfhaul to a permitted organic waste processing facility. Enter into a contract or work agreement with gardening or landscaping service provider or refuse hauler to ensure the waste generated from those services meet the requirements of AB 1826.
120. AB 75 – State’s mandate of 50% solid waste diversion from landfill • The use of mulch and/or compost in the development and maintenance of landscaped areas within the project boundaries is recommended. Recycle green waste through either onsite composting of grass, i.e., leaving the grass clippings on the lawn, or sending separated green waste to a composting facility. • Consider xeriscaping and the use of drought tolerant low maintenance vegetation in all landscaped areas of the project.
• Hazardous materials are not accepted at the Riverside County landfills. Any hazardous wastes, including paint, used during construction must be properly
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. For further information regarding the determination, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste, please contact the Riverside County Department of Health, Environmental Protection and Oversight Division, at 1.888.722.4234.
FIRE DEPARMENT CONDITIONS
The City of Hemet enforces the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 9, 2022 California Fire Code with local amendments. In addition, CCR Title 19 requirements may be applicable. The design professional should refer to these provisions for guidance when developing project drawings and specifications. Unless specifically stated herein, these conditions shall not be construed to permit or allow deviation from any Federal or State laws nor any of the local codes and ordinances adopted by this jurisdiction.
The following conditions apply to the proposed project:
121. Addressing:
a. Location: Address numbers or letters shall be displayed above the eve line of the building on the upper ¼ portion of the building or in a location on the building approved by the Fire Department. Required address signs on building shall be placed at a height and location of the building to be readily visible from the public street fronting the building at all times. Required address signs shall not be placed at a height or location on the building where the address sign is visually obstructed, confused or camouflaged by other structures or buildings, building structural or decorative features, windows, glazing, or by expected locations of parked or stopped vehicles, other signs, trees or other existing or potential obstruction. Obstructions which are installed or occur after a required address sign is approved and installed, the Fire Department may require the relocation of the required address sign, or the removal of the obstruction. Height of any numeral or letter must be 1/10 taller than the setback distance measured in feet, expressed in inches, but in no case smaller than 6 inches in height. Width or stroke of any portion of a number or letter must be 1/10 of its height but no less than .5-inch stroke. The width of any figure must be ½ its height. Suite numbers shall be a minimum 6-inch suite numbers, with a minimum .5-inch stroke, shall b located on the front and back doors. When address is located on monument sign in compliance with this section a maximum 12-inch height and maximum 2-inch stroke width maximum is allowed.
b. Illumination: All addresses required to be displayed on a building or other permanent structure shall be illuminated during all hours of darkness. The source of illumination shall be controlled by a photoelectric device which causes the address to be illuminated automatically during all hours of darkness. Timer based control devices are not allowed to be used for the purposes of controlling address illumination. The address may be illuminated by a light source placed behind, within, or near the address. Examples of acceptable light sources include selfcontained illuminated signs, landscape lighting decorative exterior building
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
lighting and advertising lighting. The power source for illumination of the address identification must be under the control of the building or property owner.
Illumination from other ambient or nearby sources, such as streetlights, advertising signs on nearby buildings, or other sources not controlled by the building or property owner are not considered sufficient for the purpose of required address illumination.
c. Format: All required address identification shall be displayed in a horizontal format. When numbers are used as part of the address, the number shall be displayed by using numerical characters and not by using letters to spell the number(s). The style or font of the character used shall be of a style or font which provides characters which are clear and easily recognizable. d. Materials: Materials used to display the address shall be made of a weatherresistant material such as wood or plastic. 122. Fire Flow: Fire flow shall be in accordance with the 2022 CA Fire Code Table B105.1(2), with a 50% reduction allowed for fire sprinklers. Hydrant quantity and spacing shall be in accordance with 2022 CA Fire Code Table C102.1. Hydrants must be at least 40 feet from the building.
123. Fire access roads shall be at least 26 feet wide, with an inside turning radius of 20 feet and an outside turning radius of 40 feet. Fire lanes on site plan are only 20 feet wide.
Access roads shall comply with Appendix D of the 2022 CFC. 124. Any automatic gates shall be Opticom activated or have a KNOX auto key switch installed. Any manual gate shall have a KNOX padlock or KNOX box installed adjacent to the gate with a key to the gate lock inside. Note that although not within scope of Fire, but as a courtesy, the Police Department has their own KNOX key and should be added wherever there is a Fire KNOX key switch.
125. Fire sprinklers designed in compliance with 2022 NFPA 13 are required. 126. A fire alarm monitoring system designed in compliance with 2022 NFPA 72 is required. 127. A fire command center for fire department operations shall be provided and designed in accordance with CFC Section 508. The fire command center shall be located near the front (street side) entrance of the building.
128. New buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based on the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication system of the city. A radio study shall be prepared to assess existing and proposed signal strength and clarity and shall provide specific recommendations to the developer to achieve compliance. Findings from the study shall be on all building plans submitted for review and approval. If the study finds that adequate levels of radio coverage cannot be provided, the building shall be equipped with an emergency radio responder coverage system and equipment shall be installed in accordance with CFC Section 510.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
129. Smoke and heat removal is required for buildings with high piled storage where the exit access travel distance exceeds 250 sq. ft. A separate permit is required for high piled storage and shall be in accordance with CFC Chapter 32 and NFPA 13. 130. All utility rooms shall be clearly labeled with 6-inch lettering and red in color for fire protection equipment.
131. Fire extinguishers shall be installed with no more than 75 ft travel distance on the interior of the building.
132. The following submittals will be required to be reviewed by the Fire Department, in this sequence, as applicable:
a. A Fire Master Plan which illustrates fire access, turning radiuses, firefighter hose lays and fire hydrant locations. A copy of this plan, once approved, shall be included in the architectural plan submittal.
b. Architectural plans.
c. Fire service underground plans.
d. Fire sprinkler plans.
e. Fire alarm plans.
f. High piled storage plans.
MITIGATION MEASURES
133. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP AE-1: Exterior Lighting. All lighting shall be directed or shielded away from nearby residential zones and contained within the boundaries of the site. Adequate lighting shall be provided to maintain a safe, on-site environment consistent with California Building Code (CBC) standards. 134. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP AQ-1: SCAQMD Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather.
Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
135. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP AQ-3: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. 136. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A pre-construction/ clearance burrowing owl survey shall be performed not more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbance activity to determine presence/absence of the species. A qualified biologist shall survey the Project site and a buffer zone, 500-feet outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow shall be flagged, and a 160-foot diameter buffer shall be established during nonbreeding season or a 250- foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. If burrows onsite are unoccupied, construction may proceed.
If the site survey determines the presence of burrowing owl, mitigation in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be implemented as follows:
• If burrowing owls are identified as being resident on-site outside the breeding season (September 1 to February 14) they may be relocated to other sites by a permitted biologist (permitted by CDFW), as allowed in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 2012).
• If an active burrow is found during the breeding season, the burrow shall be treated as a nest site and temporary fencing shall be installed at a distance from the active burrow, to be determined by the biologist, to prevent disturbance during grading or construction. Installation and removal of the fencing shall be done with a biological monitor present.
• Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation shall require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.
137. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Survey. Vegetation removal should occur outside of the nesting bird season (generally between February 1 and August 31). If vegetation removal is required during the nesting bird season, the applicant shall conduct take avoidance surveys for nesting birds prior to initiating vegetation removal/clearing. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist(s) within three days of vegetation removal. If active nests are observed, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate minimum disturbance buffers and other adaptive mitigation techniques (e.g., biological monitoring of active nests during construction-related activities, staggered schedules, etc.) to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided until the nest is no longer active. At a minimum, construction activities shall stay outside of a 200-foot buffer around the active nests. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and Riverside County Environmental Programs
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Department verify that the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities may occur.
138. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Fugitive Dust Emissions. The City shall implement the following measures to reduce the amount of fugitive dust that is reentrained into the atmosphere from parking lots and construction sites. Require the following measures to be taken during the construction of all projects to reduce the amount of dust and other sources of PM10, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403:
a. Dust suppression at construction sites using vegetation, surfactants, and other chemical stabilizers Wheel washers for construction equipment. b. Watering down of all construction areas
c. Limit speeds at construction sites to 15 miles per hour d. Cover aggregate or similar material during transportation of material. e. Adopt incentives, regulations, and/or procedures to reduce paved road dust emissions through targeted street sweeping of roads subject to high traffic levels and silt loadings.
139. Mitigation Measure AQ 4.3-1b: Reduce Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment. The City shall require each project applicant, as a condition of project approval, to implement the following measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment emissions:
a. Commercial electric power shall be provided to the project site in adequate capacity to avoid or minimize the use of portable gas-powered electric generators and equipment.
b. Where feasible, equipment requiring the use of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel) shall be replaced or substituted with electrically driven equivalents (provided that they are not run via a portable generator set).
c. To the extent feasible, alternative fuels and emission controls shall be used to further reduce exhaust emissions. - On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not is in use.
d. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use at any one time shall be limited.
e. Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors.
f. Before construction contracts are issued, the project applicants shall perform a review of new technology, in consultation with SCAQMD, as it relates to heavyduty equipment, to determine what (if any) advances in emissions reductions are available for use and are economically feasible. Construction contract and bid specifications shall require contractors to utilize the available and economically feasible technology on an established percentage of the equipment fleet. It is anticipated that in the near future, both NOX and PM10 control equipment will be available.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
g. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.
h. Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and offsite.
i. Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
j. Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity, including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
k. Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufactures’ specifications.
l. Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule 1113.
m. Construct or build with materials that do not require painting or require the use of pre-painted construction materials where feasible.
n. Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export). If the City determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx and PM emissions requirements. o. During project construction, all internal combustion engines or construction equipment operating on the project site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 2 emissions standards or higher. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization for each applicable unit of equipment. p. Encourage construction contractors to apply for AQMD “SOON” funds. 140. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e: Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors. The City shall implement the following measures to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors and sites to health risks related to air pollution:
a. Encourage the applicants for sensitive land uses to incorporate design features (e.g., pollution prevention, pollution reduction, barriers, landscaping, ventilation systems, or other measures) in the planning process to minimize the potential impacts of air pollution on sensitive receptors.
b. Activities involving idling trucks shall be oriented as far away from and downwind of existing or proposed sensitive receptors as feasible. c. Strategies shall be incorporated to reduce the idling time of diesel engines through alternative technologies such as IdleAire, electrification of truck parking, and alternative energy sources for Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs)to allow diesel engines to be completely turned off.
141. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain the services of a registered professional archaeologist (RPA), to conduct archaeological monitoring of all mass grading and trenching activities. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction.
142. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP), shall be developed by the Project Archaeologist and the contractor, in coordination with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and City, to thoroughly describe how the project mitigation measures and conditions of approval will be implemented during the course of project related ground disturbing activities. The CRMP will be subject to the approval of the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Appropriate measures for avoidance and preservation of cultural resources as determined necessary.
b. The protocols and stipulations to be followed in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that may be subject to a cultural resource evaluations. c. Treatment of inadvertent discoveries limited to basic recordation and nondestructive analysis. d. Pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors, including but limited to a mandatory Workers Environmental Awareness Training (WEAP) to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.
143. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall secure an agreement with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians for Tribal Monitoring and the Treatment and Disposition of all Tribal Cultural Resources, and tribally associated artifacts discovered within the project boundaries. Native American Monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall conduct monitoring of all ground disturbing activities associated with the project. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction.
144. Mitigation Measure TCR-2: In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
place is defined as avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians prior to certification of the environmental document.
145. Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Discovery of Human Remains: In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Hemet Planning Department immediately. The coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state regulations relating to the disposition of Native American burial that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts, in consultation with the property owner and the lead agency.
146. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP E-1: CalGreen Compliance: The Project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code (CBC) to ensure efficient use of energy.
CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval. This includes conformance with the provision of designated preferred parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles (see CBC Table 5.106.5.2; “Clean Air/Vanpool/EV” for the project) as well as EV Ready spaces (see CBC Table 5.106.5.3.3;). In addition, bike parking and racks shall be required per CBC 5.106.4.1 (5% of the number of parking spaces). 147. PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC) as included in Chapter 14, Article II, Division 3, Section 14-40 of the HMC to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards. CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
148. Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City, or City designee, from a professional paleontologist, stating that a qualified paleontologist (who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s (SVP, 2020) definition for qualified profession paleontologist) has been retained to provide services for the proposed Project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite. The PRIMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval.
The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Hemet Planning Division, or designee, shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans specify the requirements herein related to the PRIMP and the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources.
The PRIMP shall also require that in areas mapped as late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at the surface. In areas mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene young alluvial valley deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at a depth of five feet below the surface during grading or excavation activities. In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered pursuant to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010).
Criteria for discarding specific fossil specimens shall be made explicit in the PRIMP. If the qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by Project construction, then recovery techniques shall be applied. Actions include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring construction activities and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist.
Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. If no institution accepts the fossil(s), they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the City, or City designee.
The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Hemet Planning Division, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 149. Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating all light bulbs and light features within the Project are Energy Star certified. 150. Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide water efficient toilets (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm]). 151. Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide waterless urinals.
152. Mitigation Measure GHG-4: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide water efficient faucets (1.28 gpm). 153. Mitigation Measure GHG-5: Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas of the warehouse portion of the Project that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
154. Mitigation Measure GHG-6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City with an onsite signage program that clearly identifies the required onsite circulation system. This shall be accomplished through posted signs and painting on driveways and internal roadways.
155. Mitigation Measure GHG-7: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall confirm that signs clearly identifying approved truck routes have been installed on Simpson Road and Warren Road.
156. Mitigation Measure GHG-8: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant shall install a sign on the property with telephone, email, and regular mail contact information for a designated representative of the tenant who would receive complaints about excessive noise, dust, fumes, or odors. The sign shall also identify contact data for the City for perceived Code violations. The tenant’s representative shall keep records of any complaints received and actions taken to communicate with the complainant and resolve the complaint. The tenant’s representative shall endeavor to resolve complaints within 72 hours.
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
157. Mitigation Measure GHG-9: All on-site outdoor cargo-handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on-site equipment) shall be electric or non-diesel fueled. All on-site indoor forklifts shall be powered by electricity. 158. Mitigation Measure GHG-10: Prior to tenant occupancy for each building/occupancy each owner/tenant shall develop a use/occupant-specific transportation demand management (TDM) program. The TDM program shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and City Building & Safety Division for review and approval as part of tenant improvements plan(s) documentation. Recommended California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) TDM program elements are listed below:
• Provide pedestrian and bicycle network improvements within the development connecting to existing off-site facilities.
• Where applicable ensure design of key intersections and roadways encourage the use of walking, biking and where applicable transit. • Commute trip reduction (CTR) programs offered to encourage the use of vanpools, carpooling, public transit, and biking.
159. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Since this Project is one acre or more, the permit holder shall comply with all of the applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall conform to NPDES Best Management Practices for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) during the life of this permit. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits - whichever comes first - the Applicant shall provide the Building and Safety Department evidence of submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop and implement a SWPPP and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site. 160. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP HYD-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Department. The WQMP shall identify all Post-Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development Project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. 161. Plan, Program, or Policy PPP NOI-1: Construction Noise. Chapter 30, Article II, Section 30-32(33) of the HMC permits construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May. Exceptions to these standards may be granted only by the City’s building official and/or the City Council.
Construction occurring consistent with these provisions is exempt from regulation. 162. PDF NOI-1: All construction activities shall comply with HMC Section 30-32[a][43], restricting construction activities to the approved hours of construction as set forth on a permit or other city entitlement as issued by the City’s building official, Planning
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
Commission, or City Council, or as otherwise prohibited by the Hemet Building Code. 163. PDF NOI-2: Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards).
164. PDF NOI-3: All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that the emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receivers. 165. PDF NOI-4: Construction equipment staging areas shall be located at the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receivers. 166. PDF NOI-5: The construction contractor shall limit equipment and material deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment.
167. PDF NOI-6: Electrically powered air compressors and similar power tools shall be used, when feasible, in place of diesel equipment.
168. PDF NOI-7: No music or electronically reinforced speech from construction workers shall be allowed.
169. Plans, Program, or Policy PPP PS-1: School Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the Hemet Unified School District related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.
170. PDF TR-1: Sidewalks. The Project would construct sidewalks along the Project’s frontage on Simpson Road and Warren Road.
171. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A pre-construction/clearance California glossy snake survey shall be performed not more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbance activity to determine presence/absence of the species. A qualified biologist will survey the Project site and a buffer zone, 500-feet outside the project limits for glossy snakes. If any California glossy snake is found on site during the preconstruction survey a qualified biologist will relocate the snake to the nearest available offsite area with suitable habitat. 172. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: A pre-construction/ clearance burrowing owl survey shall be performed not more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbance activity to determine presence/absence of the species. A qualified biologist will survey the Project site and a buffer zone, 500-feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged,
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
and a 160-foot diameter buffer will be established during nonbreeding season or a 250- foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. If burrows onsite are unoccupied, construction may proceed.
If the site survey determines the presence of burrowing owl, mitigation in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDFW shall be implemented as follows:
a. If burrowing owls are identified as being resident on-site outside the breeding season (September 1 to February 14) they may be relocated to other sites by a permitted biologist (permitted by CDFW), as allowed in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 2012).
b. If an active burrow is found during the breeding season, the burrow shall be treated as a nest site and temporary fencing shall be installed at a distance from the active burrow, to be determined by the biologist, to prevent disturbance during grading or construction. Installation and removal of the fencing shall be done with a biological monitor present.
c. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.
173. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vegetation removal activities shall be conducted outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist within three days before commencement of vegetation clearing/ground disturbance activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive bird nests (non-listed), and 100 feet of most common songbird nests will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biological monitor to minimize impacts.
174. Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City, or City designee, from a professional paleontologist, stating that a qualified paleontologist (who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s (SVP, 2020) definition for qualified profession paleontologist) has been retained to provide services for the proposed Project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite. The PRIMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval.
The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Hemet Planning Division, or designee, shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans specify the requirements herein related to the PRIMP and the unanticipated discovery of paleontological
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
resources.
The PRIMP shall also require that in areas mapped as late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at the surface. In areas mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene young alluvial valley deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at a depth of five feet below the surface during grading or excavation activities. In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered pursuant to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010).
Criteria for discarding specific fossil specimens shall be made explicit in the PRIMP. If the qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by Project construction, then recovery techniques shall be applied. Actions include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring construction activities and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist.
Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. If no institution accepts the fossil(s), they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the City, or City designee.
The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Hemet Planning Division, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 175. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The City shall require future developments to implement the following measures to reduce the potential for human annoyance and architectural/structural damage resulting from elevated groundborne noise and vibration levels.
a. Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of historic structures shall utilize alternative installation methods where possible (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, predrilling, cast-in-place systems, resonance-free vibratory pile drivers). b. The preexisting condition of all designated historic buildings within a 50- foot radius of proposed construction activities shall be evaluated during a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall determine conditions that exist before construction begins for use in evaluating damage caused by construction activities. Fixtures and finishes within a 50-foot radius of construction activities susceptible to damage shall be documented (photographically and in writing) prior to construction. All damage shall be
14.A.
City of Hemet –Draft Conditions of Approval
Newland Simpson Project
repaired back to its preexisting condition.
c. Vibration monitoring shall be conducted prior to and during pile driving operations occurring within 100 feet of the historic structures. Every attempt shall be made to limit construction-generated vibration levels in accordance with Caltrans recommendations during pile driving and impact activities in the vicinity of the historic structures.
Status: Satisfied through the project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared October 2022 by LSA (LSA 2022) and included as Appendix I which determined that while pile driving is not proposed within 50 feet of a historic structure, as a condition of approval, construction of the proposed Project would not use large bulldozers or loaded heavy trucks within 30 feet of surrounding residential uses. Based on information from the manufacturer Caterpillar, a large bulldozer is a D9 and larger (53 tons or more). With the operation of smaller bulldozers within 35 feet of surrounding structures, vibration levels are expected to be less than 0.04 in/sec RMS.
END
14.A.
N
NOT TO SCALE
74 74
79 79
PROJECT SITE
SIMPSON RD.
WARREN RD.
DOMENIGONI PKWY
W STETSON AVE.
MUSTANG WAY
DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 7:04:20 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
TITLE SHEET
NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
G010
OWNERARCHITECT
VICINITY MAP
SHEET INDEX
NEWLAND SIMPSON ROAD
BUILDINGS 1 & 2
HEMET, CA ELECTRICAL
FC-1.0 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN BLDG. 1FC-1.1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN BLDG. 1FC-1.2 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN BLDG. 2FC-1.3 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN BLDG. 2ELECTRICAL SHEET COUNT: 4LANDSCAPEL1.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL1.2 TREE PHOTOSLANDSCAPE SHEET COUNT: 2CIVILC01 PRELIMINARY OVERALL GRADING PLANC02 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC03 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC04 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC05 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC06 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC07 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC08 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC09 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC10 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC11 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC12 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONC13 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONC14 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONC15 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONC16 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONC17 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC18 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC19 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC20 ----C21 ----C22 WQMP DETAILSC23 WQMP DETAILSC24 WQMP DETAILSC25 WQMP DETAILSC26 WQMP DETAILSCIVIL SHEET COUNT: 26 P 949.660.9128
10 EDELMANIRVINE, CA 92618
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:ALTERNATE CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
TAREK ANAN
[email protected]
(949) 660-9128 x1095
[email protected]
PEDRAM RAZAVI
(949) 788-4120 x1169
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:ALTERNATE CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE
NEWLAND CAPITAL GROUPSUITE 300IRVINE, CA 92618
TY NEWLAND
(949) 214-4779
[email protected]
ROCIO BUDETTA
(949) 214-4779
[email protected]
DATE REMARKS
2022-11-04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
OWNER'S CONSULTANTS
P 949.660.9128
10 EDELMAN
IRVINE, CA 92618
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:ALTERNATE CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
LUKE CORSBIE
[email protected]
(949) 660-9128 x1480
[email protected]
CARLY PATTERSON
(949) 788-4091
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:ALTERNATE CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER2285 SAVIG RANCH PARKWAYSUITE EYORBA LINA, CA 92887(714) 685-1115 ROBERT G. TRAZO
DANIEL W. NEILSEN
ARCHITECT'S CONSULTANTS
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
RPM ENGINNERS
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER102 DISCOVERYIRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618
DAVID DU
(949) 880-2514
www.rpmpe.com
PRIMARY CONTACT:PH:EMAIL:
COLLEN NOLAN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT13355 SILVERADO COURTCORONA, CALIFORNIA 92883
COLLEN NOLAN
(714) 743-7915
[email protected]
ARCHITECTURALG010 TITLE SHEETA100 SITE PLANA101 MASTER CIRCULATION PLANA102 MASTER FENCE AND WALL PLANA120a BUILDING 1 - FLOOR PLANA190a BUILDING 1 - ROOF PLANA210a BUILDING 1 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA300a BUILDING 1 - BUILDING SECTIONSA120b BUILDING 2 - FLOOR PLANA190b BUILDING 2 - ROOF PLANA210b BUILDING 2 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA300b BUILDING 2 - BUILDING SECTIONSA400 3D ILLUSTRATIONA500 SITE DETAILSA501 SITE DETAILSA502 TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILSARCHITECTURAL SHEET COUNT: 16
14.A.
40'
DET
DETENTION
185' 185'
40' 40'
94'
26'
TYP.
20'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
47' ROW EASE
ME
NT
26' TYP
.
70'
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
40'
70' TYP
.
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
SCREENWALL
1232'-
0"
40'
25'
PROPERTY LINE
TO FENCE
25'
PROPERTY
LINE
TO FENCE
8'
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
590'
20'
15'
33' 34' 20'
ACCESS
EASEMENT
15'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
64'
102'
72'
50' 47' 32' 47' 32' 4
7' ROW EASE
ME
NT
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
OFFICE
OFFICE
O
FF
CI E
O
FFICE
SIMPSON ROAD
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
WARREN ROAD
DOMENIGONI PARKWAY
SIMPSON ROAD
TYP.
101
1 A300a
2 A300a
110
TYP.
103
A500
2 105
TYP.
109
109
TYP.
107
105
SIM.
FIRE LANE
26'-0"
104
104 104
TYP.
9'-5"
TYP.
36'-0"
TYP.
112 112 112
A501
1 A502
1 TYP.
FIRE LANE
26'-0" CLEAR
TYP.
108
TYP.
102
108
108
CL
FIRE LANE (HATCHED)FIRE HYDRANT ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCEPROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL 10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
11/18/2024 11:28:13 AM
J. STANARD
P.E.
IRV21-0204-00
SITE PLAN
NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A100 N
0 55' 110' 220' 440'
1"=110'-0"
DATE REMARKS
2022-11-04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
2024-11-18 SITEPLAN REVISIONS
101 PROPERTY LINE.102 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT.103 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE.104 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.105 EXISTING EASEMENTS. REFER TO CIVIL.107 EXISTING SITE CURBS. REFER TO CIVIL.108 PROPOSED 8'-0" HIGHT SLIDING WROUGHT IRON GATE.109 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK.110 PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS LANE.112 PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCE LINE.116 PROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL.
SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESKEYNOTES:
SCALE: 1" = 110'-0" 1 SITE PLAN
SITE 1 AREA:
NET: 44.23 AC
1,935,243.80 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 883,080 SFBUILDING USE:
WAREHOUSE 838,926 SFOFFICE @5% 44,154 SF
COVERAGE:
GROSS: 46%NET: 45%
PARKING REQUIRED:
WAREHOUSE 1/1000 SF 839 STALLSOFFICE 1/250 SF 177 STALLS TOTAL 1,015 STALLS
PARKING PROVIDED:
AUTO: 936 STALLS
@1.08/1000 SF
REQ. ACCESSIBLE 20 STALLS
TRAILER: 204 STALLS
TRUCK DOCKS:
DOCK-HIGH DOORS 144GRADE-LEVEL DOORS 4
SITE 2 AREA:
NET: 18.01 AC
784,509.53 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 309,338 SFBUILDING USE:
WAREHOUSE 293,871 SFOFFICE @5% 15,467 SF
COVERAGE:
GROSS: 39%NET: 42%
PARKING REQUIRED:
WAREHOUSE 1/1000 SF 294 STALLSOFFICE 1/250 SF 62 STALLS TOTAL 356 STALLS
PARKING PROVIDED:
AUTO: 340 STALLS
@1.10/1000 SF
REQ. ACCESSIBLE 8 STALLS
TRAILER: 55 STALLS
TRUCK DOCKS:
DOCK-HIGH DOORS 53GRADE-LEVEL DOORS 2
SITE 3 AREA:
NET: 8.10 AC
352,816.46 SF
PARKING PROVIDED:
TRAILER: 161 STALLS
PROJECT DATA: ZONING: B-PMAX. F.A.R.: 0.60MAX. COVERAGE: 65%MAX. BLDG. HT.: 55 FTBUILDING SETBACKS:
FRONT: 20 FTSIDE: 0 FT3
REAR: 0 FT2
LANDSCAPE SETBACKS:
FRONT: 20 FTSIDE: 0 FT3
REAR: 0 FT2
LANDSCAPE REQ.: 10%4OFF-STREET PARKING:
STANDARD: 9x185
DRIVE AISLE: 25 FTOVERHANG: 2 FTTREE WELL: 5 FT
REQ. PARKING RATIO BY USE:
WAREHOUSE: 1/1000 SF1
MANUF: 1/500 SFOFFICE: 1/250 SF
NOTES:
1 CUP REQUIRED FOR WAREHOUSES LARGER THAN 400,000 SF.2 ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY OR LOCAL STREET - 10 FEET ADJACENT TO A SECONDARY STREET - 15 FEETADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE - 30 FEETNOT ADJACENT TO AN ALLY OR STREET OR RESIDENTIAL ZONE - 0 FEET 3 INTERIOR SIDE YARD - 0 FEET
STREET SIDE AND CORNER - 25 FEETADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE - 30 FEET 4 10% OF PARKING AREA.5 END SPACES TO BE 10x18DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
14.A.
40'
DET
DETENTION
185' 185'
40' 40'
94'
26' TYP
.
20' LANDSCA
PE
SETBACK
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
47' ROW EASE
ME
NT
26' TYP
.
70'
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
40'
70' TYP
.
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
SCREENWALL
1232'-0"
40'
25'
PROPERTY LINE
TO FENCE
25'
PROPERTY
LINE
TO FENCE
8'
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
590'
20'
15'
33' 34' 20'
ACCESS
EASEMENT
15'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
64'
102'
72'
50' 47' 32' 47' 32' 4
7' ROW EASE
ME
NT
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
OFFICE
OFFICE
O
FF
CI E
O
FFICE
SIMPSON ROAD
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
WARREN ROAD
DOMENIGONI PARKWAY
SIMPSON ROAD 113 111 114 110
114111
113
113
110
872,302.76
SF
WAREHOUSE
FIRE LANE (HATCHED)FIRE HYDRANT ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCEPROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL 10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
11/18/2024 11:28:16 AM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
MASTER CIRCULATION
PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A101
DATE REMARKS
2024-11-18 SITEPLAN REVISIONS
SCALE: 1" = 110'-0" 1 MASTER CIRCULATION PLAN
SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESKEYNOTES:
110 PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS LANE.111 PROPOSED TRASH TRUCK ROUTE.113 PROPOSED LINE HAUL ROUTE.114 PROPOSED VEHICLE ROUTES.
14.A.
40'
DET
DETENTION
185' 185'
40' 40'
94'
26' TYP
.
20' LANDSCA
PE
SETBACK
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
47' ROW EASE
ME
NT
26' TYP
.
70'
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
40'
70' TYP
.
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
25'
STREETSCAPE
ENHANCEMENT
SCREENWALL
1232'-0"
40'
25'
PROPERTY LINE
TO FENCE
25'
PROPERTY
LINE
TO FENCE
8'
25'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
590'
20'
15'
33' 34' 20'
ACCESS
EASEMENT
15'
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
64'
102'
72'
50' 47' 32' 47' 32' 4
7' ROW EASE
ME
NT
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
OFFICE
OFFICE
O
FF
CI E
O
FFICE
SIMPSON ROAD
OFFICE
OF
FICE
O
FFICE
OFFICE
BLDG 1
883,080 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
BLDG 2
309,338 SF
CLR. HGT: 50'
WARREN ROAD
DOMENIGONI PARKWAY
SIMPSON ROAD
108
112
116
PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCEPROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCE LINEARE MEASUREMENTS:PARCEL #1 + PARCEL #2 = 7,366 SF LINEARPARCEL #3 = 2,534 SF LINEAR TOTAL = 9,900 SF LINEARPROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL: TOTAL = 1,300 SF LINEAR 10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
11/18/2024 11:28:19 AM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
MASTER FENCE AND
WALL PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A102
SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESKEYNOTES:
108 PROPOSED 8'-0" HIGHT SLIDING WROUGHT IRON GATE.112 PROPOSED 8'-0" WROUGHT IRON FENCE LINE.116 PROPOSED 6'-0" HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALL.
DATE REMARKS
2024-11-18 SITEPLAN REVISIONS
SCALE: 1" = 110'-0" 1 MASTER FENCE AND WALL PLAN - SCREENING PLAN
14.A.
3 A210a
1 A210a
2 A210a
4 A210a
11 2727
22 A AP PB B
C CD D
E E
F F
H
H
J J
K K
L
L
M M
N N
33 44
55 6
6 7
7 88
99 1010
1111
1212
1313
1414
1515
1616
1717
1818
1919
2121
2222
2323
2424
2525
2626
WAREHOUSE
1,452'-0"
59'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 59'-0" 710'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" FUTURE OFFICE FUTURE OFFICE FUTURE OFFICE 1 A300a
2 A300a
PROPOSED FUTURE OFFICE AREA
CONCRETE WALL
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 6:39:12 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 1 - FLOOR
PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A120a
DATE REMARKS
2022-11-04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 1 BUILDING 1 - FLOOR PLAN N 0 30' 60' 100' 300' 1"=60' SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTES
WALL LEGENDLEGEND
KEYNOTES:
14.A.
CONCRETE WALL
PROPOSED FUTURE OFFICE AREA
2 A210b
1 A210b
3 A210b
4 A210b
11 1818
22 A A
G G
B B
C CD D
E E
F F
33 44
55 66
77 88
99 1010
1111
1212
1313
1414
1515
1616
1717
WAREHOUSE
978'-0"
54'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 54'-0" 370'-0"
70'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 1 A300b
2 A300b
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Architectural\Revit\0204_ARCH_B2.rvt 9/24/2024 6:46:13 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 2 - FIRST
FLOOR PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
0 25' 50' 100' 250'
N A120b 1"=50'
LEGENDWALL LEGENDSEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESKEYNOTES:
DATEREMARKS
2022-11-04PLANNINGSUB
MITTAL
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" 1 BUILDING 2 - FLOOR PLAN
14.A.
SKYLIGHT: (2%)
COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION TO PREVENT CONFLICT WITH FRAMING, FIRE SPRINKLER LINES, ELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND LIGHTING. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. 3 A210a
1 A210a
2 A210a
4 A210a
11 2727
22 A AP PB B
C CD D
E E
F F
H
H
J
J
K K
L L
M M
N N
33 44
55 6
6 7
7 88
99 1010
1111
1212
1313
14 14
1515
1616
1717
1818
1919
2121
2222
2323
2424
2525
2626
1,452'-0"
59'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 59'-0" 710'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 1 A300a
2 A300a
SOLAR AREA
SLOPE
1/4" PER FOOT MIN. SLOPE
1/4" PER FOOT MIN.
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 6:39:14 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 1 - ROOF
PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A190a
DATE REMARKS
2022-11-04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL LEGEND CALCULATIONS SKYLIGHTS: SKYLIGHT SIZE: 48"x96"=32 S.F. (WAREHOUSE AREA S.F.) x 2.0% 883,120 x .02 (SKYLIGHT SIZE) 32 DESIRED: 552 SKYLIGHTS PROVIDED: 552 SKYLIGHTS FUTURE SOLAR: ROOF AREA: 883,080 S.F. SKYLIGHT AREA: 17,664 S.F.
ROOF AREA LESS SKYLIGHT: 865,416 S.F.15% OF ROOF AREA (LESS SKYLIGHTS): 129,812 S.F.TOTAL AREA FOR FUTURE SOLAR REQUIRED: 129,812 S.F.*TOTAL AREA FOR FUTURE SOLAR PROVIDED: 130,642 S.F.* CEC SECTION 110.10(B)4 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INCLUSION OF ANY COLLATERAL LOADS FOR FUTURE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS.
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 1 BUILDING 1 - ROOF PLAN 0 30' 60' 100' 300' 1"=60' SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESKEYNOTES:
N
14.A.
SKYLIGHT: (2%)
COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION TO PREVENT CONFLICT WITH FRAMING, FIRE SPRINKLER LINES, ELECTRICAL CONDUITS AND LIGHTING. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. 2 A210b
1 A210b
3 A210b
4 A210b
11 1818
22 A A
G G
B B
C CD D
E E
F F
33 44
55 66
77 88
99 1010
1111
1212
1313
1414
1515
1616
1717
1 A300b
2 A300b
SOLAR AREA
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Architectural\Revit\0204_ARCH_B2.rvt 9/24/20246:46:14PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 2 - ROOF
PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
N A190b
SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTESLEGENDCALCULATIONS
SKYLIGHTS:SKYLIGHT SIZE: 48"x96"=32 S.F.(WAREHOUSE AREA S.F.) x 2.0% 309,338 x .02 (SKYLIGHT SIZE) 32
DESIRED: 194 SKYLIGHTSPROVIDED: 198 SKYLIGHTSFUTURE SOLAR:ROOF AREA: 309,338 S.F.SKYLIGHT AREA: 6,336 S.F.ROOF AREA LESS SKYLIGHT: 303,002 S.F.15% OF ROOF AREA (LESS SKYLIGHTS): 45,450 S.F.TOTAL AREA FOR FUTURE SOLAR REQUIRED: 45,450 S.F.*TOTAL AREA FOR FUTURE SOLAR PROVIDED: 45,650 S.F.* CEC SECTION 110.10(B)4 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INCLUSION OF ANY COLLATERAL LOADS FOR FUTURE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS.
KEYNOTES:
DATEREMARKS
2022-11-04PLANNINGSUB
MITTAL
0 25' 50' 100' 250'
1"=50'
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" 1 BUILDING 2 - ROOF PLAN
14.A.
FIRST FLOOR
0"
N M L K J H F E D C B
T.O.P.
56'-0"
LINE OF SIGHT
6'-0"
RTU
FIRST FLOOR
0"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 T.O.P.
60'-0"
PERSPECTIVE LINE VIEWS
PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION
T.O.P. BUILDING
56'-0"
WARREN ROAD 25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WARREN ROAD 13FT STREET SCAPE
WARREN ROAD 44FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
FLOWLINE
WARREN ROAD CENTERLINE
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
100'-0"
LANDSCAPE AREA
25'-0" 13'-0"
SIDEWALK
12'-0"
WARREN ROAD
32'-0"
WARREN ROAD
32'-0"
SIDEWALK
12'-0" 13'-0"
LANDSCAPE AREA
25'-0"
FLOWLINE
WARREN ROAD 44FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
WARREN ROAD 13FT STREET SCAPE
WARREN ROAD 25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WARREN ROAD 25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WARREN ROAD 13FT STREET SCAPE
WARREN ROAD 44FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
FLOWLINE
WARREN ROAD CENTERLINE
LANDSCAPE AREA
25'-0" 13'-0"
SIDEWALK
12'-0"
WARREN ROAD
32'-0"
WARREN ROAD
32'-0"
SIDEWALK
12'-0" 13'-0"
LANDSCAPE AREA
25'-0"
TRUCK PARKING AREA
.
FLOWLINE
WARREN ROAD 44FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
WARREN ROAD 13FT STREET SCAPE
WARREN ROAD 25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK PERSPECTIVE LINE VIEWS 10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 6:39:23 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 1 - BUILDING
SECTIONS NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A300a
DATE REMARKS
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION WEST/EASTSCALE: 1" = 50'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION NORTH/SOUTH SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 WARREN ROAD SECTION - WEST SIDESCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 WARREN ROAD SECTION - EAST SIDE
14.A.
FFE
0"
T.O.P.
60'-0"
1 18
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
LINE
OF
SIGHT
RTU
FFE
0"
T.O.P.
60'-0"
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
RTU
LINE OF SIGHT
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Architectural\Revit\0204_ARCH_B2.rvt 9/24/2024 6:46:18 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 2 - BUILDING
SECTIONS NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A300b
DATE REMARKS
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
1 BUILDING SECTION NORTH/SOUTH
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
2 BUILDING SECTION EAST/WEST
14.A.
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 7:08:16 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
3D ILLUSTRATION
NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A400
DATE REMARKS
N
N
14.A.
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
BUILDING 01 ELEVATIONS
NORTH
WEST
SOUTH
EAST
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
BUILDING 01 ELEVATIONS
NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST 03/28/2025 Page 1411 of 1461
14.A.
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
BUILDING 02 ELEVATIONS
NORTH
WEST
SOUTH
EAST
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
BUILDING 02 ELEVATIONS
NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST 03/28/2025
NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST Page 1412 of 1461
14.A.
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
MATERIAL BOARD
NEWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROAD
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
H-A+D JOB NO: A24-2097
MATERIAL BOARD
03/28/2025 B A E G D C G F F G
MATERIAL BOARD
B A E G D C G F F G
A. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW7006 EXTRA WHITE
B. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW7019 GAUNTLET
GREY
C. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW9170 ACIER
D. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW6258 TRICORN BLACK
E. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL WITH
CONCRETE FORM
LINER US REKLI - 1/245
NEVADA
F. WHITE DECORATIVE
SOLID BROW
WRAPPED IN
ALUMINUM PANELS
G. STOREFRONT
MEDIUM PERFORMANCE
BLUE REFLECTED
GLAZING CLEAR
ANODIZED MULLION
A E G D C G F F G
A. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW7006 EXTRA WHITE
B. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW7019 GAUNTLET
GREY
C. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW9170 ACIER
D. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL PAINTED
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SW6258 TRICORN BLACK
E. CONCRETE TILT UP
PANEL WITH
CONCRETE FORM
LINER US REKLI - 1/245
NEVADA
F. WHITE DECORATIVE
SOLID BROW
WRAPPED IN
ALUMINUM PANELS
G. STOREFRONT
MEDIUM PERFORMANCE
BLUE REFLECTED
GLAZING CLEAR
ANODIZED MULLION B A
NEWLAND CAPITAL
HEMET, CA
02/26/25
MATERIAL BOARD
NEWLAND CAPITAL S
HEMET, CA
MATERIAL BOARD
MATERIAL BOARD
EWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROA
EMET, CA
26/25
+D JOB NO: A24-2097
EWLAND CAPITAL SIMPSON ROA
EMET, CA
6/25
D JOB NO: A24-2097
NEWLAND
/2025
HEMET, CA
MATERIAL BOARD
NEWLAND C
MATERIAL BOARD
M
NEWLAND
HEMET, CA
MATERIAL BOARD
NEWLAND C
MATERIAL BOARD
M
E G D C G F F G
14.A.
132" MIN. * 60" MIN.
*
96" MIN.
18'-0" MIN.
FULL LENGTH OF PARKING SPACE
36 TYP
"
.
3' - 4"
36" MIN.
4' - 5"
3' - 0"
4' - 5"
2"
1' - 0"
(305 mm)
1' - 0"
(305 mm)
4"
1' - 6"
1' - 0"
1' - 6"
1' - 0"
3" 1" 3" 8" 1"
1' - 6"
1' - 0"
2" 1" 2" 2" 2"
9"
1' - 0"
3" 8"
2' - 0"
3" 2" 2"
ACCESSAISLE WITHBLUEBORDER ANDHATCHEDAREA
NO
PARKING
(*) VAN SPACES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE 96"WIDE MIN. WHERE ACCESS AISLE IS 96" WIDE MIN.
CONCRETE WHEEL STOP ATEACH ACCESSIBLE STALL4" STRIPES PAINTEDBLUE, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PARKINGIDENTIFICATION SIGN AT EACHACCESSIBLE STALLPAINT THE WORDS "NO PARKING"IN WHITE AT EACH ACCESS AISLEIN 12" HIGH LETTERS 2'-0"
FIG. 502.2 & 502.4
SURFACE IDENTIFICATION MARKING:INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OFACCESSIBILITY, MIN. 36"x36" MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION OF PARKING STALL AND ACCESS AISLE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1:48
CURB RAMP OR LANDING WHERE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS LOCATED AT HEAD OF STALL PAINT BLUE EQUAL TOCOLOR No. 15090 INFEDERAL STANDARD 599bWHITE PAINT NOTE:CENTER SYMBOL INEACH DISABLED ACCESSSTALL INSTALL SYMBOLFLUSH W/PAVING @ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSTALL 2"
2" TYP
THE WORDS "NO PARKING" SHALL BE PAINTED IN THE LOADING AND UNLOADING AREA IN WHITE LETTERS NO LESS THAN 305 MM (12 INCH) HIGH ON CONTRASTING BACKGROUND AND LOCATED SO THAT IT IS VISIBLE TO TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. 1 1/2"
NOTE:ARROW TO POINT INDIRECTION OF ACCESSIBLEENTRANCE BASED ONLOCATION OF SIGN.FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
ACCESSIBLE
ENTRANCE
352
ACCESSIBLE
ENTRANCE
353
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
COLOR:BORDER AND LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE)BACKGROUND - BLUE (RETROREFLECTIVE)
UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES PARKED
IN DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE
SPACES NOT DISPLAYING
DISTINGUISHING PLACARDS OR
SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES ISSUED
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
WILL BE TOWED AWAY
AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE
TOWED VEHICLES
MAY BE RECLAIMED AT
(Insert Address)
OR BY TELEPHONING
(Insert Telephone Number)
ALL LETTERING SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 1" INCHHEIGHT TYPICAL WITH 0.5"SPACING COLORS:BORDER & LEGEND - BLACKBACKGROUND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE)
APPROPRIATEINFORMATION SHALL BEADDED TO SIGN
2'-0"
2'-0"
FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
PASSENGER
LOADING
ZONE ONLY
FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
COLOR:BORDER AND LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE)BACKGROUND - BLUE (RETROREFLECTIVE) R99B (CA)
R99C (CA)
R99 (CA)
COLOR:BORDER & LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE) BACKGROUND - BLUE (RETROREFLECTIVE) OR
1/2"
1 1/2"
1/2"
3/4" 3/4" 1/2" 1 1/4" 1 1/4"
TEXT SHALL READ:"CHARGING""STATION". TEXTSHALL BE 2" IN HEIGHT BEWHITE LETTERING ON GREENREFLECTIVE BACKGROUND.TEXT SHALL READ:"ELECTRIC" "VEHICLE PARKING""ONLY" "WHILE" "CHARGING""STATION". TEXT SHALL BE1" IN HEIGHT GREEN LETTERINGON WHITE REFLECTIVEBACKGROUND. WITH 1/2" GREENBORDER
USE ONLY FOR TENANTS OF
XXXXXX ONLY.
UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES
WILL BE TOWED AT THE
OWNERS EXPENSE.
TEXT SHALL READ:"USE ONLY FOR TENANTS OF34 MARK WEST SPRING ROADONLY. UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLESWILL BE TOWED AT THE OWNERSEXPENSE.". TEXT SHALL BE REDLETTERING ON WHITE REFLECTIVEBACKGROUND, NO SMALLERTHAN 1 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITH1/2" SPACING.
FOR POST AND FOOTINGINFORMATION SEE DETAIL
BOTTOM OF SIGNAT 80" ABOVEFINISH SURFACEAT WALKINGSURFACES AND60" ABOVE FINISHGRADE ATLANDSCAPE AREAS
CHARGING
STATION
ELECTRIC
VEHICLE
PARKING
ONLY
WHILE
CHARGING
2'-0" MIN. 1'-0"
1'-6" MIN.
OSHA SAFETY RED PAINTROAD WAY - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS3-INCH HIGH WHITELETTERING @ 30' O.C. ORPORTION THEREOF.
FIRE LANE NO PARKING CONCRETE CURB OR CURB AND GUTTER- SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS TEXT SHALL READ: "NOTICE""NO PARKING" "IN REDZONES". TEXT SHALL BERED LETTERING ON WHITEREFLECTIVE BACKGROUND,NO SMALLER THAN 2 INCHES
IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ: "FIRELANE". TEXT SHALL BEWHITE REFLECTIVELETTERING ON REDBACKGROUND, NO SMALLER THAN 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ:"VIOLATING VEHICLES WILLBE CITED OR TOWED ATOWNER'S EXPENSE" "POLICE OR SHERIFF'S" "(PHONE
NUMBER)" "CVC 22500.1 CVC22658A". TEXT SHALL BERED LETTERING ON WHITEREFLECTIVE BACKGROUND,NO SMALLER THAN 1INCHES IN HEIGHT NOTICE
NO PARKING
IN RED ZONES
VIOLATING VEHICLES
WILL BE CITED OR
TOWED AT OWNER'S
EXPENSE
POLICE OR SHERIFF'S
(Phone Number)
CVC 22500.1 CVC 22658A
1'-6" MIN.
FIRE LANE
2'-6" MIN.
FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
FIRE LANE
NO
TOW AWAY
ZONE
CVC 22658A
CVC 22500.1
POLICE OR SHERIFF'S
(Phone Number)
TEXT SHALL READ: "FIRELANE". TEXT SHALL BEWHITE REFLECTIVELETTERING ON REDBACKGROUND, NO SMALLER THAN 2 INCHES IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ: "NO""PARKING" "TOW AWAY""ZONE". TEXT SHALL BERED LETTERING ON WHITEREFLECTIVE BACKGROUND,NO SMALLER THAN 2 INCHES
IN HEIGHT
TEXT SHALL READ: ""POLICE OR SHERIFF'S""(PHONE NUMBER)" "CVC22500.1 CVC22658A". TEXTSHALL BE RED LETTERINGON WHITE REFLECTIVEBACKGROUND, NO SMALLER THAN 1 INCHES IN HEIGHT
PARKING
1'-0" MIN.
1'-6" MIN.
FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL
80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
PAINT ,IN THE PAINT USEDFOR STALL STRIPING, SUCHTHAT THE LOWER EDGE OFTHE LAST WORD IS VISIBLEBENEATH A PARKEDVEHICLE, CENTER PARKINGSTALL MARKING IN STALLPAINTED PARKING STRIPES,PER CITY STANDARDS
ALIGN ALIGN
A500
8 A500
15 A500
3 A500
4 LANDSCAPE AND PAVEMENT, WHERE OCCURS
WITHIN THE LOADING ANDUNLOADING ACCESS AISLE PAINTTHE WORD "NO PARKING" IN 12"HIGH LETTERS MIN.NOTE:PAINT DIRECTIONAL ARROWS AT DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY PARKING AS REQUIRED PER CITY STANDARDS0" CONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURBCONCRETE WHEEL STOP4" WIDE STRIPE PAINTED BLUE
4" WIDE STRIPINGPAINTED WHITE, TYP.
NO
PARKING
SLOPE DN
8.33% MAX.
REGULAR STALL
SEE PLAN
SEE PLAN
MIN.
4' - 0".
2'-0"
. 19'-0"
TYP
3'-0"
ACCESSIBLE STALL
9'-0"
8'-0" @ VAN
5'-0" TYP.
12" X 24 REFLECTORIZEDSIGN. WHEEL CHAIR SHALLBE WHITE ON BLUE BACKGROUNDWITH "MINIMUM FINE $250"ALIGN TOP OF SIGN WITH OTHER ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SIGNAGE COLOR:BORDER & LEGEND - WHITE (RETROREFLECTIVE)BACKGROUND - BLUE (RETROREFLECTIVE) VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGN WITHWHITE BEADED TEXT OREQUAL ON BLUEBACKGROUND. WHEREOCCURS.FOR POST AND FOOTING INFORMATION SEE DETAIL 80" AT WALKING
SURFACES
60" AT LANDSCAPE
AREA
13 A500
7 A500
1' - 0"
18" MIN. #4 REBAR FLUSH
WITH TOP OF WHEEL
STOP
12"
9"
3/4"
2" 4 1/2"
3" 2"
9"
12"
6'-0"
ISOMETRICSCALE:N.T.S
SECTION
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING
5/8" DIA. DRILLED HOLES, FILL TOP WITH SEALANT
2" x 3" x 3/16" GALVANIZED STEEL TUBE, CAP TUBE END
4" 1'-8" 6"
2'-6"
2'-0"
CONCRETE FOOTING, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSTOP OF PAVEMENT 10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128
CIVIL ENGINEERING
BRANDING
BUILDING MEASUREMENT
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:
SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.
CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 6:39:59 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.
IRV21-0204-00
SITE DETAILS
NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD
HEMET, CA
A500
DATE REMARKS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
3 ACCESSIBLE STALL SYMBOL
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
4 "NO PARKING" PAVEMENT MARKING
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
9 ACCESSIBLE DIRECTION SIGN SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
5 UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE SIGNAGE
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
6 ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SIGN
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
7 ACCESSIBLE SIGNS
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 12 CHARGING STATION SIGNAGE SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" 16 FIRE LANE CURBSCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 10 FIRELANE ENTRY SIGNAGESCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 11 FIRELANE SIGNAGE SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 14 PAINTED "EV" MARKING SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 TYPICAL PARKING STALLS
SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
8 VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 15 PRECAST CONCRETE WHEELSTOP
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" 13 TYPICAL SIGN FOUNDATION