Agenda — Hemet City Council, April 8, 2025 (part 1 of 18)

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:

Jaculin "Jackie" Peterson
Mayor (District 2)
Carole Kendrick
Mayor Pro Tem (District 1)
Tom Lodge
Council Member (District 3)
Joe Males
Council Member (District 4)
Linda Krupa
Council Member (District 5)

Mark Prestwich
City Manager
Steven Graham
City Attorney
John P. Maier
City Clerk

AMENDED CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Hemet Public Library
300 E. Latham Ave., Hemet, California 92543
CLOSED SESSION AT 4:00 P.M.

REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.
(Updates are highlighted in red text - Item 5.C.)
Council Chamber: In-person participation is limited in the Council Chamber in order to maintain social distancing room capacity.

Live Stream: This meeting will be live-streamed on the City's website at hemetca.gov/agenda.

Public Comments: Members of the Public who wish to comment on matters before the Council, in lieu of attending in person, may submit comments on or before 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by using the following link: Online Comment Form. Comments will be recorded in the official meeting record.

Teleconference: POTENTIAL USE OF AB 2449’S JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PROVISIONS - In the event a City Council member joins the meeting virtually under AB 2449, then members of the public can utilize the number below to participate via teleconference. If all participating Council members are physically present, then the call-in feature will be unavailable, but the meeting can still be viewed at the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86529543878
Webinar ID: 865 2954 3878
Passcode: 745765
Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782

Notice Regarding Americans with Disability Act
In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or if you need agenda documents provided in an alternate format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (951) 765-2307 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made (28CFR 35.102-35.104

Page 1 of 2247 ends

ADA Title II)
Page

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:00 P.M.

2. CALL TO ORDER

3. ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - RULES OF DECORUM, RESOLUTION NO. 4545
 At this time, members of the public may only comment on an item appearing on the Closed Session agenda. Please adhere to the following when addressing the Council:
o Comments will be limited to 3 minutes or less.
o Comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council Members.
o Please follow the adopted rules of decorum: Resolution No. 4545.

5. DISCUSSION ITEMS

5.A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representative: Mark Prestwich, City Manager Employee Organization: Management/Confidential Employees

5.B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9
Number of Cases (2)

5.C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property Descriptions:

Stetson & Sanderson
456-050-044 (17.83 acres), 456-050-013 (0.91 acres), and 456-050-020 (10 acres)
Agency Negotiator: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Various
Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

6. ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION

7. REGULAR MEETING - 6:00 P.M.

8. CALL TO ORDER

Page 2 of 2247 ends

9. ROLL CALL

10. INVOCATION

11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

12. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT

12.A. City Attorney’s Report regarding Closed Session
Recommendation: Information Only

13. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Welcome to a meeting of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Hemet  Anyone who wishes to speak during public comment or on a particular item will be required to fill out a speaker slip and turn it into the City Clerk. Each request will cover one speaker.  There is a 3-minute-per-person time limit for all general public comments on non-public hearing items.  All who wish to speak, including Council members and staff, need to be recognized by the Mayor before speaking.
 Members of the public shall comply with the adopted Rules of Decorum, Resolution No. 4545. A copy of which can be requested through the City Clerk’s Office.
 You may also fill out a form and submit your comments online at www.hemetca.gov. Submittal must be done before 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
 Please state your name and item you are commenting on before speaking.

13.A. Public Comment for Items Listed on the Agenda: Consent and Discussion Items

13.B. Public Comment for Items Not Listed on the Agenda, but within Jurisdictional Matter

14. PUBLIC HEARING
 The City Council’s Procedures for Public Hearing will be as follows:
o Staff will provide a report and clarification of items presented. o The public hearing will be opened for comments for those IN FAVOR of or IN OPPOSITION to the item: followed by rebuttal to any comments made. o The Public Hearing will be closed, and the City Manager may respond to any questions raised by the public (the public will not have an opportunity to respond.). o Discussion will be brought back to the City Council for direction or action.

14.A. Public Hearing to Consider the Newland Simpson Project: General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38800 (MAP 23-008), and Variance (VAR 24- 003) to Allow Construction of Two Industrial Buildings Totaling 1,192,418 Square Feet, a Trailer Parking Lot, and Associated Site Improvements.

Page 3 of 2247 ends

development and complies with CEQA requirements as outlined in Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines §15000 et seq.

Staff Report #25-047 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council consider three (3) potential options:

OPTION #1 - Approve the Project

1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023120462) for the Newland Simpson Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including adoption of the Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California approving the following entitlements for the Newland Simpson Project:

General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003): Changing the land
use designation from Mixed Use to Business Park for
consistency with the existing zoning.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006): Allowing the
construction of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet, an ancillary truck trailer parking lot, and associated on-site and off-site improvements.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38800 (MAP 23-008): Subdividing the project site into three parcels.

Variance (VAR 24-003): Allowing a reduction in required passenger vehicle parking.

Building Height Exception: Approving an increase in building height consistent with Hemet Municipal Code Section 90- 1046(c)(3).

OPTION #2 – Deny the Project
Continue the Public Hearing to the next regular meeting of the City Council and direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution denying the project, and making appropriate findings in support thereof.

OPTION #3 – Provide Alternative Direction

Page 4 of 2247 ends

Provide such alternative direction to the City Manager as the City Council may deem appropriate.

15. RECEIVE AND FILE

15.A. The City of Hemet Warrant Registers Dated February 20, 2025, in the amount of $3,141,058.58, and March 6, 2025, in the amount of $3,222,117.45. The Payroll Periods of February 3, 2025 – February 16, 2025, in the amount of $1,041,202.88, and February 17, 2025 – March 2, 2025, in the amount of $1,109,328.69
Staff Report #25-068 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file the City of Hemet Warrant Registers.
1473 -
1638

15.B. Quarterly Grant Report for Period Ending March 31, 2025 Staff Report #25-079 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file the Quarterly Grant Report for the period ending March 31, 2025.
1639 -
1641

15.C. Quarter 3 Update on Progress of Fiscal Year 2024-25 Strategic Plan Action Item Tasks
Staff Report #25-071 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file Quarter 3 Update on progress associated with City Council Fiscal Year 2024-25 Strategic Plan Action Item tasks. 1643 -
1651

16. CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar items will be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member for separate consideration.

16.A. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2025, and the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2025 Staff Report #25-082 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Approve the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2025, and the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2025. 1653 -
1665

Page 5 of 2247 ends

16.B. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Hemet, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Hemet Kirby LLC for the Ownership and Maintenance of the Whittier Avenue Storm drain, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement in the Final Form and Format as Approved by the City Attorney
Staff Report #25-074 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Hemet, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Hemet Kirby LLC for the Ownership and Maintenance of the Whittier Avenue Storm drain, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement in the Final Form and Format as Approved by the City Attorney.
1667 -
1700

16.C. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. (CRA) for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $784,200 to Create a Comprehensive Citywide Roadway Safety Action Plan, CIP 2402, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement in the Final Form and Format as Approved by the City Attorney
Staff Report #25-042 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. (CRA) for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $784,200 to Create a Comprehensive Citywide Roadway Safety Action Plan, CIP 2402, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement in the Final Form and Format as Approved by the City Attorney.
1701 -
2195

16.D. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving an Amendment to the City's Classification and Compensation Plan to Include the Job Description Revision and Title Change from Police Reserve Officer- Level I to Police Reserve Officer- Level I/II Staff Report #25-065 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving an Amendment to the City's Classification and Compensation Plan to Include the Job Description Revision and Title Change from 2197 -
2203

Page 6 of 2247 ends

Police Reserve Officer- Level I to Police Reserve Officer- Level I/II.

16.E. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Agreement With California Baptist University and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents Related to the Agreement
Staff Report #25-089 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Agreement With California Baptist University and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents Related to the Agreement.
2205 -
2215

16.F. Adopt a Resolution of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Lease Agreement with Chick-fil-A for Temporary Use of the Simpson Center (Staff report is forthcoming)
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Lease Agreement with Chick-fil-A for temporary use of the Simpson Center.

16.G. Consideration and Approval of City of Hemet Temporary Use Permit for a "Chalk Hop" Easter Event and Food Festival and Resolution Authorizing Waiver of Fees and Usage of City Property, Tables and Lighting Support, and Staff Overtime for April 19, 2025 (Staff report is forthcoming)
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize staff to proceed with issuance and processing of a Temporary Use Permit for the property located at North Harvard Street adjacent to the Hemet Public Library.

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Waiving Application and Processing Fees for "Chalk Hop" Easter Event and Food Festival.

17. DISCUSSION - ACTION ITEM

17.A. Consideration of Accepting a Replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Parcel Map No. 36566 Staff Report #25-072 - Pdf
2217 -
2247

Page 7 of 2247 ends

Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Select from the following options:

1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Parcel Map No. 36566, located North of Kimball Avenue, West of Buena Vista Street, and East of Juanita Street.

2. Do not approve the Replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Parcel Map No. 36566, located North of Kimball Avenue, West of Buena Vista Street, and East of Juanita Street.

3. Provide an Alternative Direction to the City Manager.

18. CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS

MAYOR PETERSON

1. Investment Oversight Committee

2. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency

3. Ramona Bowl Board of Directors

4. League of California Cities

5. Homeless Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

6. Business Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

7. Cal Trans Liaison Ad-Hoc Committee

8. Veterans Memorial Ad-Hoc Committee

MAYOR PRO TEM KENDRICK

1. Investment Oversight Committee

2. Planning Commission

3. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)**

4. Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (RCA)*

5. League of California Cities

6. Community Action Partnership

7. Hemet San Jacinto Water Master Board *

8. CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee

9. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)*

10.Youth Council Ad-Hoc Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA

1. Hemet Housing Authority

2. Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees

3. Cal Trans Liaison Ad-Hoc Committee

4. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission*

5. League of California Cities

6. Riverside County Transportation Commission

7. Riverside Transit Agency*

8. Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (RCA)*

9. Hemet San Jacinto Water Master Board*

10.WRCOG Regional Committees: Riverside County Waste Management

Page 8 of 2247 ends

Task Force

11.RCTC Committee: Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee

12.Art and Culture Ad-Hoc

COUNCIL MEMBER TOM LODGE

1. Hemet Housing Authority

2. Clean Up/Graffiti Ad-Hoc Committee

3. League of California Cities

4. Youth Council Ad-Hoc Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER MALES

1. League of California Cities

2. Planning Commission

3. Riverside County Transportation Commission

4. Riverside County Transit Agency *

5. Western Riverside Council of Governments *

6. Business Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

7. CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee

8. Clean Up/Graffiti Ad-Hoc Committee

9. Homeless Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

10.Veterans Memorial Ad-Hoc Committee

CITY MANAGER MARK PRESTWICH

19. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
The following items are tentatively scheduled and are subject to change. The City Council may ask the City Manager to add specific items to a future agenda by a majority vote.

April 22, 2025:

1. CDBG Public Hearing for Con-Plan and Annual Action Plan

2. Second Council Budget Workshop

3. Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley Appeal Decision May 13, 2025:

1. 20-Year Road Rehabilitation and Funding (Tentative Workshop)

2. Chain Link Fence Ordinance

3. Billboard Ordinance

4. Review and Renewal of Hemet Municipal Code 38-3 and the Specialized Equipment Use Policy and Procedure for the Annual Review

20. ADJOURNMENT

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, John Paul Maier, MMC, City Clerk for the City of Hemet, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall located at 445 E. Florida Ave., the Hemet Public Library located at 300 E. Latham Ave., Hemet, CA, and the City Website.

Page 9 of 2247 ends

Date & Time: April 4, 2025, at 5:30 p.m.

Meeting Schedule: The City Council of the City of Hemet regularly meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted. Closed and Special Sessions will be duly noticed as needed.

Council Agendas: Agendas for Regular Meetings are available for public review on the City’s website at hemetca.gov and in the City Clerk’s Office, 445 E. Florida Ave. typically by 4:00 p.m. on the Thursday prior to the meeting, but no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Agendas for Closed and Special Sessions are made available at least 72 hours prior to the meeting when possible, but no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Livestream: Regular City Council Meetings are available for viewing during the meeting at hemetca.gov.

Use of Equipment: Please contact the City Clerk’s Office if requesting to use the chamber equipment as part of a scheduled presentation 24 hours prior to the meeting at (951) 765-2307.

Disclosure of
Campaign
Contributions
(Levine Act –
Government Code
Section 84308):

Pursuant to Government Code section 84308, members of the Hemet City Council are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid contracts, labor contracts, or personal employment contracts with City of Hemet employees), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the Councilmember received more than $500 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item in the previous 12 months. Members of the Hemet City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors, or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $500 to a Councilmember in the previous 12 months are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject agenda item and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence the subject agenda item. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient Board member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk prior to the subject hearing or by verbal disclosure at the time of the hearing.

Page 10 of 2247 ends

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Apr 08 2025
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Monique Alaniz-Flejter, Community Development Director; ☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☒ Public Hearing TITLE:

Public Hearing to Consider the Newland Simpson Project: General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38800 (MAP 23-008), and Variance (VAR 24-003) to Allow Construction of Two Industrial Buildings Totaling 1,192,418 Square Feet, a Trailer Parking Lot, and Associated Site Improvements.

By the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023120462) has been prepared for the Newland Simpson Project. The FEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and complies with CEQA requirements as outlined in Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines §15000 et seq.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council consider three (3) potential options:

OPTION #1 - Approve the Project

General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003): Changing the land use designation from Mixed Use to Business Park for consistency with the existing zoning.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006): Allowing the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet, an ancillary truck trailer parking lot, and associated on-site and off-site improvements.

Page 1 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 11 of 2247 ends

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38800 (MAP 23-008): Subdividing the project site into three parcels.

Variance (VAR 24-003): Allowing a reduction in required passenger vehicle parking.

Building Height Exception: Approving an increase in building height consistent with Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1046(c)(3).

OPTION #3 – Provide Alternative Direction
Provide such alternative direction to the City Manager as the City Council may deem appropriate.

BACKGROUND:

The applicant, Newland Simpson, proposes to develop an approximately 74.88-acre site located in the southwestern portion of the City of Hemet, near the intersection of Warren Road, Simpson Road, and Domenigoni Parkway. The project includes the construction of two high-cube industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet, an 8.9-acre ancillary trailer parking lot, and associated on-site and off-site improvements, including street widening, sidewalks, utility extensions, and landscaping.
 Building 1 is proposed at approximately 883,080 square feet, with 144 dock-high doors, warehouse and office space, and surface parking.
 Building 2 would be approximately 309,338 square feet, with 50 dock-high doors and similar supporting facilities.
 A total of 425 trailer parking stalls and 1,256 passenger vehicle parking spaces are proposed throughout the site.

Although earlier submittals (and certain documents included with this Staff Report) may describe the project as a speculative warehouse development, the applicant has since identified Rialto Pacific, LLC as the likely tenant. Rialto Pacific is a regional fulfillment company that handles logistics, warehousing, and inventory services—primarily for large retailers such as Costco, Target, and Walmart—focused on products like textiles and apparel.

On December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5–0) to recommend denial of the project (reasoning described below). In response to the Planning Commission’s concerns, the applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis, provided additional

Page 2 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 12 of 2247 ends

infrastructure commitments (including road repairs and traffic contributions), and presented updated architectural plans to reflect improved design standards.

The City Council now serves as the final decision-making authority on all aspects of the project. The Council is being asked to consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and to determine whether to approve or deny the proposed land use entitlements, including the General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Parking Variance, and Building Height Exception.

Planning Commission Recommendation
On December 3, 2024, the City of Hemet Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Newland Simpson Project and all associated entitlements, including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120462), a General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, and Variance.

After reviewing the Final EIR, public testimony, and all supporting documentation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5–0) to recommend denial of the project. During their deliberations, Commissioners raised the following key questions and concerns:
 Does the economic and fiscal benefit of the Project clearly and measurably outweigh its potential significant and unavoidable environmental impacts?  Is the proposed development consistent with the long-term land use vision under the General Plan, which calls for a balance of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses?  Will the proposed traffic and infrastructure improvements adequately mitigate circulation impacts, especially at key constraints like Warren Road and the Warren Road bridge?  Does the project’s design and intensity align with the surrounding land uses and air quality expectations for the area?
These questions led the Commission to determine that approval of the project could not be supported at that time. Their recommendation was therefore to deny the Project.

Overview of Regulatory Framework
General Plan Amendment
As part of the proposed project, the applicant requests a General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003) to change the land use designation of the site from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P). This amendment is intended to align the General Plan land use designation with the site’s existing zoning designation of Business Park, thereby eliminating an internal inconsistency in the City’s land use framework.

The Hemet General Plan serves as the City’s long-range policy guide for land use, development, and infrastructure planning. General Plan amendments are considered legislative actions and are subject

Page 3 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 13 of 2247 ends

to specific findings under California Government Code Section 65354. In accordance with state law, the Planning Commission must provide a written recommendation to the City Council, which serves as the final decision-making body.

Approval of a General Plan Amendment requires findings demonstrating that the amendment:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not cause any internal inconsistencies in the General Plan.

2. The proposed amendment reduces internal inconsistencies in the General Plan.

3. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

4. That proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the overall goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan.

Simultaneous Review
The proposed General Plan Amendment, along with the associated Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Variance, and building height exception, are being processed concurrently to allow for a comprehensive and coordinated review of the Project. This approach ensures consistency across all discretionary actions and allows the City Council to consider the full scope of the project in a unified manner.

In accordance with the Hemet Municipal Code and California Government Code, when a General Plan Amendment or other legislative action is processed concurrently with related development entitlements, the Planning Commission serves in an advisory role. The Commission’s recommendations are forwarded to the City Council, which acts as the final decision-making body for all components of the project.

Conditional Use Permit
The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006) to allow the construction and operation of two industrial warehouse buildings, each exceeding 400,000 square feet. Under Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1043, warehouse and fulfillment center uses of this size are conditionally permitted in the Business Park (B-P) zone and require approval of a CUP.

Conditional Use Permits are evaluated based on their potential impacts on surrounding uses, operational characteristics, and consistency with the City’s General Plan. Although CUPs are typically reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, this CUP is being processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment, and therefore, the City Council serves as the final decision-making body.

The CUP has been reviewed by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC)—which includes representatives from Public Works, Engineering, Building, Police, Fire, and Planning and recommended with conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and public infrastructure.

Approval of a Conditional Use Permit requires the following findings, per Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-42.5:

Page 4 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 14 of 2247 ends

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.

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.

3. That the use and operation are consistent with the General Plan elements, goals, and policies; and

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.

Tentative Parcel Map
The project includes Tentative Parcel Map No. 38800 (MAP 23-008), which proposes to subdivide the

74.88-acre site into three parcels: two development parcels—one for each proposed warehouse— and one for the ancillary trailer parking lot. This subdivision would allow for the independent development and operation of each component of the project.

Under the Hemet Municipal Code (Section 70-1) and the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code §66410 et seq.), the Planning Commission acts as the advisory agency for tentative maps and is responsible for reviewing, recommending, and conditionally approving or denying tentative subdivision maps. As the TPM is being processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment, the City Council serves as the final decision-making body on this map.

In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474), a Tentative Parcel Map may only be approved if the following findings can be made:

1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Government Code.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

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.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

Page 5 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 15 of 2247 ends

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.

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.

Variance
The applicant is requesting approval of Variance No. 24-003 to allow a reduction in the required number of passenger vehicle parking spaces for the proposed warehouse development.

Under the Hemet Municipal Code, parking requirements for industrial uses are based on the size and use of the building. Based on standard ratios, the project would typically require 1,372 passenger vehicle spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 1,256 spaces, which represents a reduction of approximately 8.4%. The variance is requested to accommodate site design constraints, including secure vehicle access and circulation gates at the building entrances.

A variance may only be granted when strict application of zoning standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning code. Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-44.5, the following findings must be made to approve a variance:

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 physical circumstances are similar to other parcels in the zone, such circumstances are not unique and a variance shall not be granted.

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.

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.

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 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.

Page 6 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 16 of 2247 ends

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. The proposed buildings meet this setback requirement.

Because the height exception is being processed concurrently with other discretionary entitlements, the City Council serves as the final reviewing authority for this request.

ANALYSIS:

Project Setting
The proposed Project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Hemet, as shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Location of the Draft EIR. The Project site encompasses approximately 74.88 gross acres (71.11 net acres). The Project site is comprised of two parcels identified as 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, Simpson Road, and Domenigoni Parkway, respectively. 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.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and utilized for farming activities with existing irrigation infrastructure and roadway access as shown in Figure 3-3, Aerial and Figure 3-4, Existing Site Photos. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU), specifically Mixed-Use Area #4 as shown in Figure 3-5, Existing General Plan Land Use. The Project site has an existing zoning designation of Business Park (B-P). The Project site is not located within a Specific Plan or Redevelopment Plan Area.

Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the north, Salt Creek Channel to the south and east, and Model Masters Airpark and Vacant Land to the west.

Page 7 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 17 of 2247 ends

Surrounding General Plan and Zoning Table
General Plan Zoning Land Use
Project Site Mixed Use #4 Business Park (B-P) Vacant Land North Mixed Use Mixed Use Vacant Land
South Open Space Open Space -G Salt Creek Channel
East Open Space Open Space -G Salt Creek Channel
West Low Density (2.1-5.0
dwelling units per acre)
R-1 (Specific Plan
Required)
Vacant Land
West Mixed Use #4 Business Park (B-P) Vacant Land& Model Masters Airpark
Annexation and Pre-Zoning History
On January 24, 2012 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4476 approving a comprehensive update to the General Plan, which replaced the City's 1992 General Plan. The General Plan established land use designations for all property within the City limits, the Sphere of Influence, and the greater Planning area. Subsequently, on January 28, 2014 as part of a petition to annex the Southwest Hemet District in the City's Sphere of Influence in Unincorporated Riverside County, a Zone Change (ZC 13-003) was adopted Ordinance No. 2014-1877. The zone change is also referred to as "Pre-Zoning". All proposed zoning and pre-zoning must be consistent with the General Plan land use designations. The annexation area and pre-zoning map illustrated below, totaling 940.63 acres, which includes the subject property, is expected to become a vibrant area featuring residential, commercial, and industrial opportunities that enable the continued westward growth of the City. The Southwest Pre-zoning Project was determined to be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of the General Plan Comprehensive Update.

Annexation and Pre-Zoning Map (ANX 14-001)

Page 8 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 18 of 2247 ends

The Pre-Zoning (Zone Change) established six zones that correspond to their underlying General Plan land use designation. More specifically, the subject property was pre-zoned to BP (Business Park) Zone within the Warren Road Mixed Use Area #4 General Plan. Anticipated land uses identified in the General Plan contemplated the Mixed Use Area to be 25% Retail/Commercial, 40% Commercial Office/Medical/Light Industrial, 30% Residential, and 5% Open Space.

Mixed Use Area 4 (MU-4) consists of approximately 248.5 gross acres. The Project Area is approximately 74.88 gross acres or 30% of the total acreage of the annexed area.

Why a General Plan Amendment is Proposed
The General Plan Amendment included with this project is a cleanup to ensure that the adopted zoning is internally consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning compatibility matrix, and the corresponding land use designation of Business Park. The purpose of the BP Zone is to reserve sites for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses that include corporate and

Page 9 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 19 of 2247 ends

general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and new technology. The General Plan presents a vision for the City's future, and embodies goals, policies, and strategies to turn that vision into a reality. The Plan is comprehensive yet flexible enough to respond to emerging trends and challenges.

DISCUSSION:

Project Description
The Project proposes to develop the 74.88-acre Project site with two new industrial buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet (SF) and an ancillary trailer parking lot. Building 1 would be developed with an 883,080 SF high-cube warehouse building including 838,926 SF of warehouse space, 44,154 SF of office space, and 144 dock-high doors with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.47.

Building 2 would be developed with a 309,338 SF high-cube warehouse building including 293,871 SF of warehouse space, 15,467 SF of office space, and 50 dock-high doors with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.39. The Project would also include an 8.90-acre ancillary trailer parking lot with 160 truck trailer parking stalls in the easternmost lot across Warren Road.

The Project would provide approximately 483,977 SF of landscaping, covering approximately 24.5 percent of the site. The Project would include infrastructure improvements along Simpson Road and Warren Road, including roadway widening, installation of sidewalks, and installation of a new sewer line.

A variance is requested to reduce the required parking from 1,372 parking spaces to 1,256 spaces.

The proposed building height of Building 1 and 2 range between 56’-0” to 60’-0” in height to the top of parapet. Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1046(3), the reviewing authority may authorize a ten percent increase in the maximum building height (55’-0” building height maximum) for structures that are setback a minimum of 100 feet from a residential use or zone, not including signs.

The project is in compliance with these criteria. 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.

As previously mentioned, the project includes a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Designation of Business Park for consistency with the current Zoning Designation of Business Park.

Circulation
Access to Building 1 would be provided via three proposed driveways on Simpson Road. The western and eastern driveways on Simpson Road would be 40-feet-wide and provide truck access while the middle driveway would be 26-feet-wide and be limited to passenger vehicle access. The western driveway to Building 2 on Simpson Road would be 40-feet-wide and would provide truck access. The eastern driveway would be 26-feet-wide and would be limited to passenger vehicle access. Finally, access to the truck trailer parking lot east of Warren Road would be provided from a 40-foot-wide driveway on Simpson Road which would allow truck access. Trucks are expected to primarily utilize Warren Road and Domenigoni Parkway, which are designated truck routes within the city (See Figure 3-12, Truck Routes). Onsite circulation would be provided by internal drive aisles around the

Page 10 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 20 of 2247 ends

buildings. Sidewalks would be constructed along the Project frontages on Simpson and Warren Road.

Sidewalk area would be dedicated to the City as part of the Project.

Vehicle Trips and Regional Access
Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route (SR) 79 located approximately 3.9 miles west from Domenigoni Parkway, which is adjacent to southern border of the Project site in the southern portion of the City of Hemet, and SR 74 (Florida Avenue) North, which bifurcates the City of Hemet, about 3.2 miles north via Warren Road, as shown in Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity. Local access is provided via Simpson Road, Warren Road.

Vehicle trips were generated for the proposed development in accordance with the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019). The Project trip generation is shown in Table 4.1. of the Draft EIR. The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,539 daily trips. This includes trucks and passenger vehicles combined. The daily trip distribution includes 146 AM (112 inbound and 34 outbound) peak hour trips, and 197 PM (55 inbound and 142 outbound) peak hour trips.

The Riverside County Transportation Analysis Guidelines provides for a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) adjustment for the increased roadway capacity utilized by truck trips due to their heavier

Page 11 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 21 of 2247 ends

weight, larger size, and reduced maneuverability. The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,235 daily PCE trips, 188 AM (140 inbound and 48 outbound) peak hour PCE trips, and 240 PM (71 inbound and 169 outbound) peak hour PCE trips.

Truck Route
Passenger Vehicle Route

Page 12 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 22 of 2247 ends

Parking
The Project would provide a total of 420 trailer parking spaces located throughout the Project site. A total of 204 trailer spaces would be located along the east and west sides of Building 1, and 55 spaces would be located on the eastern side of Building 2. A total of 161 truck trailer parking spaces are proposed in the truck trailer parking lot east of Warren Road. Additionally, 1,256 passenger vehicle spaces, inclusive of accessible (ADA) spaces, would be provided for employees and visitors in surface lots to the north and south of each warehouse. The applicant is requesting a variance from the standard passenger vehicle parking space requirements. Please note, the project plans illustrate a design to accommodate 1,276 passenger vehicles. However, the applicant has requested the allowance for reduction of an additional 20 parking space as an alternative option should the secured gated entrances to Buildings 1 and 2 require additional clearance for swing gates, which would resulted in proposed parking of 1,256 spaces.

Table 1: Parking Requirement (Building 1 and 2)
Land Use Parking Ratio Area Required Provided
Building 1 Warehouse 1/1000 S.F. 838,926 S.F. 839 Stalls 759 Stalls Building 1 Office 1/250 S.F. 44,154 S.F. 177 Stalls 167 Stalls Building 2 Warehouse 1/1000 S.F. 293,871 S.F. 294 Stalls 258 Stalls Building 2 Office 1/250 S.F. 15,467 S.F. 62 Stalls 72 Stalls Total 1,192,418 S.F. 1,372 Stalls 1,256 Stalls
Table 2: Proposed Ancillary Trailer Parking
Land Use Trailer Parking
Lot 166
Building 1 204
Building 2 55
Total 425
Operational Characteristics
The proposed buildings are anticipated to operate up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as high-cube fulfillment center warehouse. The warehousing and distribution uses could include multiple shifts with operational activities 24 hours per day. The proposed Project would not include any cold storage facilities that would generate increased air quality and transportation impacts.

The buildings are designed such that business operations would be conducted within the buildings, with the exception of traffic movement, parking, trailer connection and disconnection, truck and trailer storage, and the loading and unloading of trailers at designated loading bays. The outdoor cargo handling equipment used during loading and unloading of trailers (e.g., yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts) would be non-diesel powered, per contemporary industry standards.

Page 13 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 23 of 2247 ends

Dock doors on the warehouse buildings would not be occupied by a truck at all times of the day.

There are many more dock door positions that have been provided for the warehouse buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping volumes. It is anticipated that the dock doors that are in use at any given time would usually be selected based on interior building operation efficiencies (i.e., trucks dock closest to where the goods carried by the truck are stored inside the warehouse). As a result, many dock door positions would remain frequently inactive throughout the day. Pursuant to State law, on-road diesel-fueled trucks are required to comply with air quality and greenhouse gas emission standards, including but not limited to the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations, aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. All storage of equipment and materials shall be fully contained inside the buildings. A condition of approval would prohibit the storage yard for contractor equipment and materials. Additionally, the outdoor storage of temporary accessory structures, including metal or other storage containers, would be prohibited.

Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed Project would construct onsite water lines to connect to the existing 24-inch water main in Simpson Road. The Project would construct onsite recycled water lines that would connect to the existing 36-inch recycled water line in Simpson Road. The Project would also construct onsite sewer lines to connect to a new 24-inch sewer main in Simpson Road, which would also be constructed by the Project. Runoff from the Project site would be collected and treated by four underground and two aboveground infiltration basins, located throughout the site. On-site basins would include an emergency pump overflow that would discharge onsite and ultimately discharge to the Salt Creek Channel, mimicking existing conditions. The Project is also coordinating with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to build the Master Drainage Plan Facilities surrounding and traversing the project site.

The Applicant/Developer shall prepare plans for all improvements in the public right-of-way for Simpson Avenue and Warren Road. All improvements along the project frontage shall include Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement, striping, markings, Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, parkway landscaping, irrigation, and street trees. Simpson Avenue is designated as a Secondary 4U (4 Lane Undivided) west of Warren Road and a Collector 2U (2 Lane Undivided) east of Warren Road per the City of Hemet General Plan. Simpson Road west of Warren Road shall have a 47’ half-street right-of-way, and the east side shall have a 33’ half-street right-ofway. 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. The 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. Warren Road is designated as a Secondary 4U (4 Lane Undivided) 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.

If approved, the Applicant would be conditioned to pay fair share for the Traffic Signal at Warren Road and Simpson Road, as well as provide a 20-foot right-of-way dedication, for access to the CityOwned property APN 465-140-032 from El Fuego Road located on the west side of the property.

Additionally, since the Planning Commission's review of the project, the developer has also agreed to additional infrastructure improvements as described below.

Page 14 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 24 of 2247 ends

Landscaping
The proposed project includes approximately 413,951 square feet of ornamental landscaping that would cover approximately 17.7 percent of the site for Building 1 and 2. Proposed landscaping would include 24-inch box trees, various shrubs, and groundcovers to screen the proposed building, infiltration/detention basin, and parking and loading areas from off-site viewpoints. Proposed landscaping includes Chinese Elm, Crape Myrtle, Coast Live Oak, Golden Rain Tree, Brisbane Box, Western Redbud trees, and Canary Island Pine. Proposed shrubs, groundcovers, and vines include Dwarf Agave, Kangaroo Paw, Dwarf Bottle Brush, Silver Streak Flax Lily, Silverberry, Daylily, Texas Ranger, Fortnight Lily, Deer Grass, Tiny Tangerine Bulbine, Furhmans Red Sage, Coast Rosemary, Flowering Carpet Rose-Pink, Prostrate Rosemary, Prostrate Ceanothus, and Myoporum. Pursuant to Section of Hemet Municipal Code, parking lot landscaping shall cover 10 percent of the parking area, including 1 tree per 5 parking spaces, 1 tree for every 500 square feet of landscaping in all other areas, and minimum of 25 percent of all landscape area shall be planted in shrubs.

Screening
The proposed landscaping extends around the perimeter of the Project site and in between the parking areas. Wrought-iron fencing would surround the two buildings and trailer parking lot. The truck courts would also be gated from all entrances. The Project includes the construction of a sixfoot-high concrete wall along the western property line, which would be perpendicular to any public views facing south on Simpson Road and would, therefore, not interfere with any long-range views.

Proposed wrought iron fencing located along the frontage of Simpson Road and Warren Road, shall be setback behind the required landscape buffer and parkway. As illustrated below, the proposed loading and trailer parking area is approximately eight feet below the grade of the street level, which will visual provide screening of trucks and loading docs, in addition to the 25-Foot streetscape landscape buffer along east and west sides of the Warren Road.

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, with architectural relief every 100 feet.

Landscaping will planted on the west side of the perimeter wall screening the truck loading areas, and thus creating additional screening along the western edge of the property.

Screening of Truck Parking and Loading (West Side of Warren Road)

Page 15 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 25 of 2247 ends

Screening of Truck Parking Lot (East Side of Warren Road) Architecture
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing exterior design enhancements.

The revised elevations provide enhanced architectural design elements inspired by the Western Science Center, including horizontal and vertical scored wall paneling, accent art elements, and prominent glass paneling. Colors and materials include concrete Tilt Up panel painted in Sherwin Williams SW 9170 Acier, Sherwin Williams SW6258 Tricorn Black, Concrete Tilt Up Panel with Concrete Form Liner US REkli- 1/245 Nevada, White Decorative Solid Brow Wrapped in Aluminum Panels, and Storefront Medium Performance Blue Reflected Glazing Clear Anodized Mullion. The use of accent colors provides visual interest to the building and gateway into the City.

Page 16 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 26 of 2247 ends

Environmental Determination
On December 18, 2023, the City of Hemet publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project by noticing the State Clearinghouse (“SCH”), and other agencies in compliance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

On January 3, 2024, the City of Hemet held a duly noticed public scoping meeting at the Hemet Public Library regarding the preparation of the EIR to discuss and hear from the public on the potential environmental impacts. Between May 17, 2024, and July 1, 2024, the City complied with the State-mandated 45-day public review period for the Project Draft EIR (“Draft EIR”) took effect, and was publicly noticed in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA guidelines. The notice of availability was mailed to property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius in addition to posting a notice on the property. A copy of the Draft EIR was sent to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse (SCH No.2023120462), and a copy of the Draft EIR was placed at the City Hall public counter and posted on the City’s website. (https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents).

Draft EIR Public Review
The City distributed the Draft EIR for public review beginning May 17, 2024 and ending July 1, 2024.

During the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, groups, or individuals:

1. California Department of Conservation

2. Riverside County Department of Waste Resources

3. South Coast Air Quality Management District

4. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

5. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

Page 17 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 27 of 2247 ends

6. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

7. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy

8. Advocates for the Environment

9. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Response to Comments
The City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), consisting of all the comment letters received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. The FEIR was distributed to the Draft EIR commenters prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The FEIR, and Draft EIR, including technical appendices can be accessed for review on the City website as provided above.

Airport Land Use Commission Review
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. The Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan depicts the site as being located below the 55 CNEL contour range from aircraft noise. Therefore, no special measures to mitigate aircraft noise are required at this location. The elevation of Hemet-Ryan Airport’s Runway 5-23 at its southwesterly terminus is 1,499 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). At a distance of 9,300 feet from the project to the nearest point on the runway, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review would be required for any structures with top of roof exceeding 1,592 feet AMSL. The project’s site pad elevation is 1,504 feet AMSL as verified by the Airport Land Use Commission. Based on this information, the maximum building height of 60 feet, resulting in a top of elevation of 1,564 AMSL and would not require FAA review. It should be noted for the record that there was an error in the ALUC Staff Report which cited a maximum building height of 52 Feet (1,556 AMSL) which is eight-foot difference. The plans presented to the ALUC by the applicant depicted a maximum height of 60 feet at the highest point of the building. The ALUC was notified of the report error. ALUC staff indicated that no further approvals are necessary as the property is located in Zone E, and to make sure the City is aware of the correct height.

AB 52/SB18 Tribal Consultation
The City has completed the Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation. On September 1, 2023, the City provided written notices to interested California Native American tribes on the City’s list consistent with SB 18 and AB 52. Responses were received from both the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (September 8, 2023) and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (September 29, 2023) stating that they had no further concerns on the Project. A response was received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) on September 20, 2023, requesting more information and applicable documents related to the Project as well as consultation for the Project.

On October 2, 2023, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians also requested consultation on the Project.

One response was received from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) on December 19, 2023. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, ACBCI, and MBMI stated that the Project site is potentially sensitive for buried cultural resources and requested Tribal Monitors to be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities.

Page 18 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 28 of 2247 ends

Two separate in-person meetings with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians were held on October 23, 2023, and August 7, 2024, to discuss the project among other projects in the City. At that meeting, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Joseph Ontiveros, expressed the importance of being the lead consulting tribe through the monitoring process. The applicant and the staff were agreeable to this request. On September 25, 2024, mitigation monitoring conditions were received and have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Please note, due to the timing of receipt of conditions, the final mitigation monitoring program will be amended accordingly.

Late Response to Comments
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 2024, additional written comments were provided by the following agencies after the Draft EIR 45-day public review period. Responses can be found on the City's Environmental Documents Page.
https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents

1. Law Offices of Abigail Smith on behalf of Solera Diamond Valley Residents

2. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance

3. Advocates for the Environment
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Impacts
Within the EIR that has been prepared for the Project (SCH No. 2023120462), mitigation measures are provided under the categories of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Service, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The EIR determined that the Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts under the categories of Agriculture and Forestry, GHG Emissions, Noise, and Transportation based on the analysis and findings in the Draft EIR and requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC). A brief description of these impacts is as follows:

Agriculture and Forestry: The Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The overall decrease in farmland within the City was identified as a significant cumulative impact in the General Plan EIR. According to the City of Hemet General Plan EIR, the only agricultural land that would not be converted to nonagricultural uses would be approximately 2,614 acres designated for Agriculture or Open Space by the General Plan, located primarily within the eastern portion of the City (Hemet, 2012a). Replacement of agricultural resources offsite would be infeasible as creation of new farmland-status properties within the City is outside of the Applicant's control.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GHG emissions generated from the proposed Project at buildout are primarily associated with vehicle and truck trips. Draft EIR Table 5.8-2 shows that the Project would generate a net total of approximately 10,362.39 MTCO2e per year, and that 8,272

Page 19 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 29 of 2247 ends

MTCO2e (79%) is from mobile sources. Even with the Project’s compliance with applicable rules, adherence to standard conditions and requirements, and the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project’s operational-source GHG emissions would exceed the applicable regional thresholds of significance (3,000 MTCO2e/year). The Draft EIR also explains how and why there is no way to quantify the reductions from implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10 in the CalEEMod, and that neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Hemet can reduce.

Noise: The Project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards or other agencies (Draft EIR at p. 5.12- 17). To reduce the potentially significant Project traffic noise level increases on these three road segments, potential noise reducing actions associated with truck traffic, including rubberized asphalt hot mix pavement and off-site noise barriers, were analyzed. However, the use of rubberized asphalt or off-site noise barriers would not effectively reduce the off-site traffic noiselevel increases at the adjacent land uses to the impacts roadway segments. Even with mitigating Project Design Features, the Project’s off-site traffic noise level increases at adjacent noise sensitive land uses would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Transportation: The Project conflicts or is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision 9B) regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-16). As shown in Table

5.15-8, the Project Baseline VMT/Service Population would be 28.8 VMT/Service Population or

17.3 percent above the City’s threshold under baseline conditions and 28.7 VMT/Service Population or 16.5 percent above the City’s threshold under cumulative conditions. Project Design Mitigation Measure GHG-10 and Project Design Feature TR-1, VMT would be reduced by

13.82 percent. Despite this reduction, the Project VMT would continue to exceed the baseline threshold. As the Project transit analysis zone’s (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.

Therefore, the Project VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Findings of Facts & Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) Because the Draft EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated below the level of significance, Findings of Fact (Findings) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are required. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section § 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the

Page 20 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 30 of 2247 ends

agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

Public Correspondence
At the December 3, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, there were 25 members of the public in attendance at the meeting who spoke in opposition to the project. Concerns were expressed in regards to noise, traffic, truck route access, and air quality.

Planning Commission Recommendation
On December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission found that based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by, the City, the Planning Commission determined that the economic benefits did not outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts due to a lack of economic evidence provided by the applicant, and that the statement of overriding considerations was not quantified or justified. Additionally, members of the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the circulation and infrastructure impacts of the project on Warren Road and the Warren Road bridge that connects the project to Domenigoni Parkway. Commissioners were also concerned about the unavoidable impacts to air quality. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency determined to not recommend approval of the project.

Furthermore, the Planning Commission found that the proposed infrastructure improvements represented in the criteria for the Statement of Overriding Consideration did not offset the community impacts of proposed project unless the applicant increased investments to infrastructure improvements to the City's satisfaction. Since then, the applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefits Analysis, with additional concessions for City Council consideration.

New Fiscal Impact & Economic Benefit Analysis
A Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis has since been provided by the applicant. The analysis is dated March 12, 2025, and has been prepared by DPFG, a Development Planning and Financing Group. The purpose of the fiscal impact analysis is to determine the estimated fiscal impacts of the Project to the City's General Fund. Additionally, the Economic Benefit Analysis estimates the number of annual jobs created and annual labor income generated during construction on an on-going basis after construction is complete.

The three components of economic impact are further described below:

Direct Impact: Represents the initial change in the economy attributable to the development of the Project, which occurs directly on the Project site.

Page 21 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 31 of 2247 ends

Indirect Impact: Represents the impact on local industries based on inter-industry purchases as the economy responds to new demand of the directly affected industries. This impact represents the additional rounds of economic activity that occur consequently from the direct impacts, specifically through the production of goods and services required to support businesses directly impacted.

Induced Impact: Represents the impact to the local economy based on the increased household spending due to additional labor income generated, specifically through the purchase of goods and/or services required to meet consumer demand generated by the Project’s employees.

As provided by the applicant, the tenant for this application is no longer speculative. Rialto Pacific LLC, the tenant for this project, is an Inland Empire company that is selling services – not products – such as unpacking boxes from overseas containers and stocking product for Costco, Target, and WalMart. They will be textiles and apparel such as socks, shirts, and pants. These goods are handled and serviced by Rialto Distribution, not resold.

The Project is anticipated to create 2,011 annual jobs (direct, indirect, and induced). The total annual jobs during the construction period is projected to result in 1,190 Jobs and Labor Income. The total estimated ongoing annual number of jobs created includes 1,309 onsite operations, 382 jobs created as a result of new business spending, and 321 jobs created as a result of spending by new direct and indirect employees in the local economy. The induced effect on labor income is comprised of the income of employees working at businesses that experience growth from the discretionary spending of the direct and indirect employees. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate an average of $71,557,000 annually in labor income over the 18-month Construction Period, and $114,412,000 annually in labor income post construction. The total ongoing annual industries affected include warehouse and storage, office administrative services, other real estate, employment services, limited-service restaurants, full-service restaurants, couriers and messengers, all other food and drinking places, individual and family services, and services to buildings.

The report concludes that the Project will generate a recurring net General Fund Fiscal Surplus revenue to the City of $225,439, a one-time fee payment of $8,583,585, off-site improvement and developer contribution of $12,104,512, and $195,000 to the City for various municipal improvements.

Furthermore, the report indicates that the economic benefit to the City from the project includes $572.06 million for the first five years of project occupancy and $1.14 billion for the first 10-year period.

Community Benefits to be provided beyond the limits of the project:
 Developer to maintain access to APN 465-140-032 with a dedicated 20’ access road through the project, at the project’s sole cost.
 Developer to provide full-width street improvements on Simpson Avenue, in lieu of standard half-width improvements, at the project’s sole cost, applicable to the City’s existing public right of way.
 Developer to fund or construct 1,000 linear feet of the regional running trail along the Salt Creek Trail at the project’s frontage.
 Developer to fund or construct a new “Welcome to the City of Hemet” monument sign that is to be no smaller in size than 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.

Page 22 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 32 of 2247 ends

 Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure 1,000 linear feet east of the project along Simpson Road, starting at the property’s easternmost property line. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.
 Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure 1,000 linear feet north of the project along Warren Road, starting at the property’s northernmost property line. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.
 Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure at Warren Road and Domenigoni intersection between the Salt Creek Bridge crossing and Domenigoni Parkway northern boundary. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.  Project must require any tenant, existing or future, to abide by City of Hemet truck routes. This includes the provision that the City of Hemet can change the truck routes throughout the city; and the tenant will direct future truck traffic to those revised routes.  Developer to contribute $50,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s study of the Domenigoni Parkway median project.
 Developer to contribute $75,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s Traffic Signal Synchronization project for a radius of two miles of signals to the project boundaries.  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.
 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 four weeks' notice prior to the event.  Developer to enhance the building’s corner office characteristics in order to tie in architectural elements of the Western Science Center at the project’s sole cost.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

GOAL TWO: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
To ensure that Hemet is a hub, with access to quality jobs, shopping options, and a varied and sustained tax base.

Objective 1: Develop business practices that welcome new development by streamlining processes.

Objective 2: Provide resources for new businesses to enhance the customer service experience.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fiscal Impact & Economic Benefit Analysis
An economic analysis dated March 12, 2025, has been prepared by DPFG for the project. The report concludes that the Project will generate a recurring net annual General Fund Fiscal Surplus revenue to the City of $225,439, a one-time fee payment of $8,583,585, off-site improvement and developer contribution of $12,104,512, and $195,000 to the City for various municipal improvements.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative Council Action

Page 23 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 33 of 2247 ends

The City Council may adopt the "Revised" Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project as follows, and associated conditions of approval as provided in Exhibit C.

After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section § 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section § 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project are as follows:

1. The Economic Benefit Analysis estimates that the Project would create 2,011 permanent jobs which would generate $114.41 million in labor income on an annual basis. In addition, the Project would generate 1,190 total jobs during construction, generating $71.56 million in labor income during the construction period.

2. The City of Hemet has had unemployment rates ranging between 3.6 and 15.3 percent over the last five years (EDD 2024). The Project would provide new employment opportunities for people living in Hemet and the surrounding cities. Most of the new labor and office jobs that would be created by the proposed Project would be positions that are anticipated to be filled by people who would already be living within Hemet and surrounding communities.

3. Based on the analysis of revenues and expenditure, after 10 years the Project would generate a net aggregate surplus of $2.2 million to the City’s General Fund, which can be reinvested into public services, infrastructure, and community programs.

4. The Project would also contribute an estimated $8,583,585 in one-time fees to the City and various other agencies including: $66,775.41 for fire services, $410,191.79 for storm drain facilities, $1,394,558.67 for transportation fees, $50,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s studying of the Domenigoni Parkway median project, $75,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s Traffic Signal Synchronization project for a radius of two miles of signals to the project boundaries, and $1,001,631.20 for the Hemet Unified School District.

5. The Developer is expected to spend $12,104,512 on offsite improvements, street enhancements, and utilities. The Project would also contribute an estimated $195,000 to the City General Fund for various infrastructure improvements.

6. The Project implements capital investment through the construction of new buildings to enhance the City’s economic and fiscal viability pursuant to the City of Hemet General Plan.

7. The Project would improve the jobs-housing balance in Hemet by providing a substantial number of new job opportunities near existing housing, reducing commute times, and increasing economic stability for local residents.

8. The Project would implement roadway and pedestrian improvements that would be a catalyst to future pedestrian improvements, which would improve pedestrian safety for current and future residents in the area and workers at the facility.

Page 24 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 34 of 2247 ends

9. The Project transforms an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with the General Plan objectives for the Mixed Area #4 Focus Area, including General Plan Policy LU9.6. The City’s General Plan identifies the need for a balanced employment base with a diversity of businesses, including industrial businesses. The Project would provide an industrial employment hub in proximity to highways and available truck routes. By allowing industrial development in this location, more employment opportunities would be available to the community.

10. The Project implements the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Land Use Policies related to population and housing by providing employment centers near a housing rich area.

11. Consistent with the General Plan, the Project facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base by creating building space for multiple businesses, providing new diverse employment opportunities.

Project Findings
Furthermore, the statutory findings and findings required as provided in the Background Section of this report in accordance with the Hemet Municipal Code would also be required to be included with determination.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment No. 1 CC Resolution EIR
Exhibit A(1) FEIR & Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit A (2) FEIR Appendix A. SCAQMD RTC
Exhibit B (3) Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis Exhibit C CEQA Findings of Facts & Statement of Overriding Considerations (Revised) Exhibit C CEQA Documents Newland Simpson Project
Exhibit E Late Response to Comments Solera Diamond Letter Exhibit F Late Response to Comments Advocates for the Environment Letter Exhibit G Late Response to Comments Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Letter Attachment No. 2 CC Resolution Entitlement
Exhibit A Draft Conditions of Approval with Amendments
Exhibit B Architectural Plans
Exhibit C Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit D Preliminary Grading Plans
Attachment No. 3 Aerial Map
Attachment No. 4 Site Plan and Aerial Overlay Map
Attachment No. 5 Existing Zoning Map
Attachment No. 6 Existing General Plan Map MU-4 Area
Attachment No. 7 Existing General Plan Map
Attachment No. 8 Proposed General Plan Map
Attachment No. 9 Regional Truck Route Map
PHN Certificate of Mailing
032825 Official Ad Proof_CC_Newland Simpson

Page 25 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 35 of 2247 ends

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 FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023120462 FOR THE NEWLAND

SIMPSON WAREHOUSE PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL TO

ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM. APN 465-140-043 and 465-
140-042
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), Variance (VAR 24-003) and Tentative Parcel Map 38800 is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Hemet, California, has reviewed GPA 22-003, CUP 22- 006, VAR 24-003 and Tentative Parcel Map 38800 in accordance with the authority granted by the California Government Code Section 21080(d) and § 21082.2(d) and Hemet Municipal Code §90-41; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2023, the City of Hemet publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project providing

Page 26 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 36 of 2247 ends

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
such notice to the State Clearinghouse (“SCH”), and other agencies in compliance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 2024, the City of Hemet held a public scoping meeting, noticed in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA guidelines, regarding the preparation of the EIR, to discuss the proposed Project, and receive input from the public regarding potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, between May 17, 2024, and July 1, 2024, the City complied with the State-mandated 45-day public review period for the Project Draft EIR (“Draft EIR”), which took effect, and was publicly noticed in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA guidelines, a copy of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2023120462), placed at the City Hall public counter, and posted on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, comments on the DRAFT EIR were received from the California Department of Conservation, Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy, Advocates for the Environment, and the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR (“FEIR”), consisting of comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR, was submitted with the inclusion of Findings of Fact (“Findings”), a Statement of Overriding Consideration (“SOOC”) and

Page 27 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 37 of 2247 ends

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
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the City Council’s consideration. For the purposes of this Resolution, the Final EIR shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR’s errata section together with the other sections of the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR, which would require re-circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Project, dated May 2024, and FEIR for the Project, dated November 2024 provides an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and has been prepared in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and State regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2025 the 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
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hemet has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, has found that the FEIR considers

Page 28 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 38 of 2247 ends

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
all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project but is incomplete and inadequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Hemet, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City shall not approve a project that has significant effects on the environment unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects and that the benefits of approving the project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts, such that the impacts are acceptable based on CEQA Guideline Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CEQA Findings and SOOC attached as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on the Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the Project have not been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

Page 29 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 39 of 2247 ends

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
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
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS
The City Council considered the entire record before it, including but not limited to, the Final EIR, all documents incorporated by reference therein, any comments received and responses provided, and other substantial evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) within the record and/or provided at the public hearing, hereby finds and determines that:

1. Certification of EIR. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by, the City, the City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA

Page 30 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 40 of 2247 ends

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
Guidelines. The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA, and adopt and certify the FEIR as complete and adequate.

2. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings and the SOOC attached as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference.

3. Mitigation Plan Approval. Although the FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would result from approval of the Project, certain environmental effects can feasibly be avoided or mitigated and will be avoided or mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures included in the FEIR and the MMRP.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit "A(1) and Exhibit (A) Conditions of Approval," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible.

4. Significant Impacts. The significant impacts of the Project under the category of Agriculture and Forestry, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Transportation have not been reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly outweighed by the economic, legal, social, or technological benefits independent of any other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the Findings and SOOC.

5. No Significant New Information Added to Draft EIR. The information provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the proposed Project and in the

Page 31 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 41 of 2247 ends

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
responses to comments on the Draft EIR, the information added to the FEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

6. Independent Judgment: The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

SECTION 2. DETERMINATION AND ORDERS

1. Certifies EIR: The City Council recommends approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2020031032) General Plan Amendment GPA 22-003, CUP22-006, Tentative Parcel Map 38800, Variance 24- 003, and Building Height Exception attached as Exhibit A(1) and A(2), and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Adopts Statement of Facts and Findings: The City Council recommends adoption of the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the EIR attached Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference.

3. Adopts MMRP: The City Council recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program for the Final EIR, attached as Exhibit A(1) and Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) and incorporated herein by reference.

Page 32 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 42 of 2247 ends

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

5. Notice of Determination: Upon approval by the City Council, the City Council, the Community Development Director shall prepare a Notice of Determination concerning certification of the Final EIR, and within five (5) calendar days of project approval, file the Notice with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse for posting.

6. Location: The City Council recommends the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023120462) for General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-006), Tentative Parcel Map 38880, Building Height Exception, Variance (VAR 24-003) and all documents incorporated therein and forming the record of decision therefore, be filed with the Hemet Community Development Department (Planning Division) at the Hemet City Hall, 445 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, California, 92543 and be made available for public review upon request.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective on April 8, 2025
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th Day of April, 2025. _________________________
Jackie Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Page 33 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 43 of 2247 ends

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
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

Page 34 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 44 of 2247 ends

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
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

Page 35 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 45 of 2247 ends

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

NEWLAND SIMPSON ROAD PROJECT

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023120462
PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF HEMET
445 E FLORIDA AVENUE
HEMET, CA 92543
CONTACT: MONIQUE ALANIZ-FLEJTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PREPARED BY:
3333 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 500
IRVINE, CA 92612
April 2025

Page 36 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 46 of 2247 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 37 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 47 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project Table of Contents
City of Hemet iii
Final EIR
April 2025
Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

2. Response to Comments............................................................................................................................ 2-1

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR........................................................................................................................ 3-1

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................. 4-1 Tables
TABLE 2-1: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR....................................................................................................... 2-1 TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM................................................................................ 4-3 Appendices

APPENDIX A SCAQMD RTC

Page 38 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 48 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project Table of Contents
City of Hemet iv
Final EIR
April 2025
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 39 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 49 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 1. Introduction
City of Hemet 1-1
Final EIR
April 2025

1. Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR, or Final EIR) has been prepared by the in conformance with the environmental policy guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Newland Simpson Road Project (proposed Project; Project).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR, or Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft EIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process;
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which began on May 17, 2024, and ended on July 1, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency, the City of Hemet. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
The following chapters are contained within this document:

Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the contents of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies and organizations who commented on the Draft EIR, as well as copies of their comment letters received during and following the public review period, and individual responses to their comments.

Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and organizations as described in Chapter 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review.

The City of Hemet has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The additional material clarifies existing information prepared in the Draft EIR and does not present any new substantive information. None of this new material indicates that the project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

Chapter 4, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP was prepared based on the mitigation measures included in this Final EIR and has been included as Chapter 4.0.

Page 40 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 50 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 1. Introduction
City of Hemet 1-2
Final EIR
April 2025

1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible … CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers 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. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.”
Section 15204(d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies are being forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, with copies of this Final EIR document, which conforms to the legal standards established for response to comments on the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b), lead agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the Final EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before a project is approved, but are not required to do so.

Page 41 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 51 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-1
Final EIR
April 2025

2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency, the City of Hemet (City), to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals who reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and prepare written responses. This section includes copies of all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR and the City of Hemet’s responses to the comment letters. Copies of the comment letters and responses to the comment letters will be provided to City decisionmakers as part of the Final EIR. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered for reference purposes which correspond to the City’s response. A summary of each numbered comment in the commenter’s letter precedes the City’s response.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review and comment period (May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024). All of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages.

Table 2-1: Comments Received on the Draft EIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 California Department of Conservation June 10, 2024
A2 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources June 24, 2024 A3 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 28, 2024 A4 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District June 27, 2024
A5 Morongo Band of Mission Indians June 28, 2024
A6 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians July 1, 2024
Organizations
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy June 10, 2024 O2 Advocates for the Environment June 24, 2024
O3 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance June 28, 2024 O4 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance June 28, 2024

Page 42 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 52 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-2
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A1: California Department of Conservation (3 pages)

Page 43 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 53 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-3
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 44 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 54 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-4
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 45 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 55 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-5
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A1: Department of Conservation, dated June 10, 2024 Comment A1.1: This comment introduces the comment letter and states that the Department of Conservation (DOC) has reviewed the Draft EIR. The comment provides a summary of the DOC’s responsibilities and their role in the review process of CEQA documents.

Response A1.1: The 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 A1.2: This comment provides a summary of the proposed Project and states that based on the DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project site is designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Response A1.2: This comment is informational in nature and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts not already disclosed in the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR Section

5.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, and as shown in Figure 5.2-1 of the Draft EIR, the site contains approximately 9.2 acres of Prime Farmland and 63.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. This comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is warranted.

Comment A1.3: This comment states that the conversion of agricultural land is a permanent reduction and impact to California’s agricultural land resources. The comment recommends discussion on the type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting from the proposed Project. The comment also recommends discussing impacts on any current and future agricultural operation in the vicinity; cumulative impacts on agriculture land; any City or County Agriculture Mitigation Plans, Programs and Policies; and discussion on proposed mitigation measures for impacted agriculture lands within the proposed Project area.

Response A1.3: As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources, the site contains approximately 9.2 acres of Prime Farmland and 63.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown in Figure 5.2-1 of the Draft EIR. Currently, the entirety of the Project site is utilized for farming and row crops Therefore, the Project would result in the direct loss of 9.2 acres of Prime Farmland and 63.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, which would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

However, as mentioned in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR, the Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU) and a zoning designation of Business Park (B-P), both of which are intended for urban uses. The proposed Project is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing General Plan land use designation of the site from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P); however, the proposed Project’s use is permitted under the zoning designation. As evidenced by the site’s current land use and zoning designations, urbanization of the site has been anticipated and accounted for since the adoption of the General Plan in 2012. The site is not among the 2,927 acres of land designated for Agriculture within the General Plan. As such, conversion of the site from agricultural uses has been planned by the City’s General Plan since 2012 and the Project does not represent an unplanned conversion of agricultural land.

As discussed within Section 5.2.2.3 of the Draft EIR, the City of Hemet does not have specific policies or programs related to farmland beside the City’s Right to Farm Ordinance. As the Project site is not zoned for agricultural uses, the Right to Farm Ordinance does not apply to the proposed Project.

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR.

Comment A1.4: This comment states that the DOC advises that the EIR address mitigation for the loss or conversion of agricultural land. The comment states that one potential form of mitigation would be a

Page 46 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 56 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-6
Final EIR
April 2025
conservation easement through the outreach purchase of easements or payment of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The comment provides a resource for farmland mitigation strategies and states that the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation and the City should consider other mitigation forms as well.

Response A1.4: As discussed on page 5.2-8 within Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry of the Draft EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the Project’s conversion of agricultural lands designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. The entirety of the site is currently in agricultural production. However, 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, offsite mitigation would not reduce impacts as the loss of agricultural land occurs within the Project parcels as the Project parcels have no relationship to the loss of agricultural lands within the City or County.

The comment letter proposes additional mitigation measures such as the purchase of easements and application of mitigation fees. However, this would not effectively reduce the Project’s impact related to the loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance since these mitigation measures would not directly reduce the impacts in relation to the Project site. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the impact to levels that are less-than-significant; therefore, these recommended measures have not been included. Furthermore, an EIR is not required to adopt a mitigation measure that does not effectively address a significant impact (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 CA4th 342, 365). Thus, the proposed Project is not required to implement the measures proposed in the comment as they would fail to reduce impact levels.

The Project site is designated for urban development pursuant to the City’s General Plan and zoning designation. Existing agricultural uses within the City of Hemet are in various stages of converting to urban uses that are consistent with the General Plan. Existing agricultural uses within the City are becoming economically unsustainable and represent land uses that are increasingly incongruous with continuing urbanization of the City. Furthermore, retention of agricultural uses on the Project site would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the previously approved General Plan as detailed in the General Plan EIR. Urbanization of the site has been anticipated and accounted for since the adoption of the General Plan in 2012. The site is not among the 2,927 acres of land designated for Agriculture within the General Plan. As such, conversion of the site from agricultural uses has been planned by the City’s General Plan since 2012 and the Project does not represent an unplanned conversion of agricultural land. The commenter does not provide additional data or specific measures for consideration or incorporation when discussing “other feasible mitigation measures”. Thus, no further response is warranted.

Comment A1.5: This comment requests that the DOC be notified with future hearing dates as well as staff reports pertaining to the Project. In addition, the comment provides contact information if the City has any questions on DOC’s comment letter.

Response A1.5: The DOC will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary 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 .

Page 47 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 57 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-7
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A2: Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (3 pages)

Page 48 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 58 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-8
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 49 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 59 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-9
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 50 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 60 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-10
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A2: Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, dated June 24, 2024 Comment A2.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter. The comment provides a summary of the proposed Project.

Response A2.1: The 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 A2.2: This comment lists the surrounding landfills to the Project site. The landfills listed are El Sobrante Landfill, Lamb Canyon Landfill and Badlands Landfill. This comment includes the updated description of these landfills and is inclusive of the 2023-2024 information.

Response A2.2: This comment includes the most updated information regarding the landfills listed within the Draft EIR. The comment includes information on El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands Landfill average daily tonnages as well as their max daily permitted tonnage based on the 2023-2024 reports.

This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact. However, in response to the comment, page

5.17-15 of the Draft EIR has been revised in Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIR to state:

Table 5.17-4 below summarizes the characteristics of each landfill. Based on the average daily tonnage, the three landfills have a combined remaining capacity of approximately 10,780 10,779 tpd.

Table 2-2: Landfill Capacity
Name Max Daily
Permitted (tpd) 1
Average Daily
Tonnage (tpd)1
Available Daily
Disposal (tpd) Closure Date2
El Sobrante Landfill 16,054 10,341 10,646 5,713 5,408 11/1/2059 2052 Lamb Canyon Landfill 5,000 2,049 1,969 2,915 3,031 4/1/2032 Badlands Landfill 5,000 2,848 2,660 2,152 2,340 1/1/2059 1 Source: RCDWR, 2024 (included in Appendix A)
2 Source: CalRecycle, 2022; CalRecycle, 2023
Comment A2.3: This comment suggests the inclusion of two different measures to reduce the Project’s anticipated soil waste impacts and enhance compliance with SB 1383 and AB 1826.

Response A2.3: The Project would already be required to comply with Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 1826. Section 62-28 of the Hemet Municipal Code would also require the Project to follow AB 1826 stating that if the business generates more than two cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week recycling services must be arranged by subscribing to the City’s franchise for the pick-up of organic materials. As the Project would be in compliance with the suggested waste reduction measures no further response is Comment A2.4: This comment requests that the Department of Waste Resources be notified with future transmittals pertaining to the Project. In addition, the comment provides contact information if the City has any questions on the Department of Waste Resources comment letter.

Response A2.4: The Department of Waste Resources will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary 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 .

Page 51 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 61 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-11
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A3: South Coast Air Quality Management District (9 pages)

Page 52 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 62 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-12
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 53 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 63 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-13
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 54 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 64 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-14
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 55 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 65 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-15
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 56 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 66 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-16
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 57 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 67 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-17
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 58 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 68 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-18
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 59 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 69 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-19
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 60 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 70 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-20
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A3: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 28, 2024 Comment A3.1: This comment states that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has reviewed the Draft EIR for the Newland Simpson Road Hemet Project.

Response A3.1: 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 A3.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project information within the Draft EIR.

Response A3.2: 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 A3.3: This comment states that the Draft EIR assumed that the average daily truck trip length is

39.9 miles for 4+-axle trucks with a weighted average trip length of 30.47. The comment also states that since the Project site is approximately 90 miles from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, a projectspecific approach to vehicle trip length calculations should be included in the Final EIR.

Response A3.3: 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 that would extend to the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.

Comment A3.4: This comment states that the Project would disturb up to 15 acres in per day and that the Draft EIR uses SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Table for five acres as a screening tool to determine if the proposed Project’s emissions could result in a significant impact to air quality. The comment then recommends that since the proposed Project would disturb more than five acres/day during construction, a project-specific dispersion model should be used to determine construction localized air quality impacts.

Response A3.4: As detailed on pages 49-50 of the Draft EIR Appendix C, Air Quality Impact Analysis, the LST analysis is based on the equipment-specific grading rates from SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds and CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix C: Emission Calculation Details for CalEEMod that determined the Project would disturb a maximum of 5.5 acres per day (Table 3- 10). The SCAQMD analysis states that if the total acreage disturbed is greater than 5 acres per day, then LST impacts may still be conservatively evaluated using the LST look-up tables for a 5-acre disturbance area. Use of the 5-acre disturbance area thresholds can be used to show that even if the daily emissions from all construction activity were emitted within a 5-acre area, and therefore concentrated over a smaller area would result in greater site adjacent concentrations, however, the impacts would still be less than significant if the applicable 5-acre thresholds are utilized. As detailed on Draft EIR page 5.3-29, the emissions from disturbance of 5.5 acres per day was evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs for a 5-acre site, which determined that emissions concentrated into a 5-acre area would not exceed LST thresholds, and that no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and project-specific dispersion modeling is not required.

However, in response to the comment from SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency, air dispersion modeling utilizing AERMOD version 23132 was performed for construction and operational emissions. Modeling in

Page 61 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 71 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-21
Final EIR
April 2025
AERMOD was performed consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, with emissions modeled using volume sources covering the Project site. For construction emissions, fugitive dust emissions were modeled as a groundbased area source, while volume sources were used for construction equipment exhaust emissions. As shown below in Tables 1 and 2 for construction and operation, respectively, Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptor location. AERMOD dispersion modeling outputs are presented in Attachment B within Appendix A of this Final EIR.

Table 1: Localized Significance Summary – Peak Construction Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.06 0.01 4.10E-02 0.36 0.50 Background Concentration A 0.9 0.8 0.044
Total Concentration 0.96 0.81 0.09 0.36 0.50
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.4 10.4 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
A Highest concentration from the last three years of available data. Per SCAQMD LST guidance, PM10 and PM2.5 background concentrations are not considered.

Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm.

Table 2: Localized Significance Summary – Peak Operations Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 1.27E-02 6.79E-03 9.01E-04 0.24 0.20 Background Concentration A 0.9 0.8 0.044
Total Concentration 0.91 0.81 0.04 0.24 0.07
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.5 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
A Highest concentration from the last three years of available data. Per SCAQMD LST guidance, PM10 and PM2.5 background concentrations are not considered.

Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm.

Comment A3.5: This comment states that the Hemet Logistics West Project should be added to the Table 5- 1 Cumulative Projects List.

Response A3.5: This Project is included in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects List, as Project No. 23, with the Title Hemet 63.

Comment A3.6: This comment states that SCAQMD has been developing guidance for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts for CEQA projects. The commenter also recommends that the Lead Agency perform a qualitative analysis of cumulative impacts by listing all surrounding past, present, and probable future projects and may also perform a quantitative analysis of cumulative air toxins.

Response A3.6: The comment regarding SCAQMD development of guidance for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts for CEQA projects, has been noted.

Page 62 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 72 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-22
Final EIR
April 2025
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 Pollution 1, 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. 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 5.3-30 and 5.3-31 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. This therefore has have the potential to correlate to a health risk, which would be less than cumulatively significant. 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 than0.01, 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.

Furthermore, each of the cumulative projects listed by the comment are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project and proposed Project truck routes.The Kirby Industrial project is located approximately 11,050 feet (2.1 miles) northeast of the proposed Project site, and approximately 7,950 feet (1.5 miles) from a proposed Project truck route on Warren Road.
• The JD Fields & Company project is located approximately 15,000 feet (2.8 miles) northeast of the proposed Project site, and approximately 12,000 feet (2.3 miles) from a proposed Project truck route on Warren Road.
• The National Tube Steel project is located approximately 9,900 feet (1.9 miles) northeast of the proposed Project site, and approximately 6,900 feet (1.3 miles) from a proposed Project truck route on Warren Road.
• The Hemet 63 project is located approximately 9,150 feet (1.7 miles) northeast of the proposed Project site, and approximately 4,000 feet (0.8 miles) from a proposed Project truck route on Warren Road. • The Hemet Logistics West project is located approximately 6,200 feet (1.2 miles) northeast of the proposed Project site, and approximately 3,900 feet (0.7 miles) from a proposed Project truck route on Warren Road.

As such, TAC emissions from these cumulative projects combined with those from the proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a cumulatively significant health risk impact.

Comment A3.7: This comment states that SCAQMD staff reviewed the operational phase HRA air quality modeling files and states that the building downwash effect was modeled for a 238-horsepower diesel fire pump’s DPM emissions, but not modeled for truck idling DPM emissions. The comment states that by not modeling the building downwash effect for the trucking idling DPM emissions, the dispersion model results in an underestimation of ground-level pollutant concentrations near the building. The comment also states that 1 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-workinggroup/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf

Page 63 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 73 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-23
Final EIR
April 2025
effects of building downwash can cause maximum ground level concentrations to more than double. The comment states that to model the building downwash effect of truck idling DPM emissions, the truck idling emissions must first be classified in AERMOD as a point source-type. As stated in SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212, the algorithms used in building downwash only affect point source types and do not affect volume source types. The comment states that the proposed Project’s operational HRA modeling file shows that the truck idling DPM emissions have been classified as line volume source types. The comment recommends: (1) truck idling DPM emissions be modeled as point source types; (2) include building downwash effect on such DPM emissions in the model; and (3) include the updated HRA results and air quality analysis in the Final EIR.

Response A3.7: Pursuant to the comment, the HRA has been revised to model idling truck exhaust as point sources rather than volume sources, and as such building downwash is now accounted for in the model for these emission sources. Tables 3 and 4 below present the operational risk and combined construction and operational risk, respectively, for the revised modeling.

Table 3: Summary of Operational Cancer and Non-cancer Risks Time Period Location
Maximum Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure
Maximum Exposed Sensitive
Receptor (Location R3) 1.47 10 No
25 Year
Exposure
Maximum Exposed Worker
Receptor (Location R6) 0.08 10 No
Annual
Average
Maximum Exposed Sensitive
Receptor (Location R3) <0.01 1.0 No
Annual
Average
Maximum Exposed Worker
Receptor (Location R6) <0.01 1.0 No
Table 4: Summary of Construction and Operational Cancer and Non-cancer Risks Time Period Location
Maximum Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure
Maximum Exposed Sensitive
Receptor (Location R1) 1.30 10 No
Annual
Average
Maximum Exposed Sensitive
Receptor (Location R1) <0.01 1.0 No
As shown above in Table 3, with truck idling emissions modeled as point sources as well as the inclusion of the building downwash option, operational risk at the maximum exposed sensitive receptor remained unchanged at 1.47 in one million, while operational risk at the maximum exposed worker receptor was reduced from 0.09 in one million to 0.08 in one million. As shown in Table 4, the combined construction and operational cancer risk at the maximum exposed sensitive receptor increased slightly from 1.29 in one million to 1.30 in one million. AERMOD modeling outputs are presented in Attachment C, and detailed risk calculations are presented in Attachment D within Appendix A to the Final EIR.

Comment A3.8: This comment states that should the recommended revisions from the comments above result in any new significant adverse air quality impacts, mitigation measures should be included to minimize or eliminate impacts. The comment also states that there are potential health impacts to new sensitive

Page 64 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 74 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-24
Final EIR
April 2025
populations with the buildout of the adjacent Mixed Use parcels. Thus, the commenter has provided additional project design features and/or mitigation measures to further reduce air quality and GHG impacts to be incorporated into the Final EIR.

Response A3.8: As discussed above in Responses A3.3 through A3.7, none of the above comments have resulted in any new adverse impacts, thus no additional mitigation measures beyond what has been proposed in the Draft EIR would be required. As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.3-14, Summary of Construction and Operational Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks, in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction or operational activity. The Project would implement the City of Hemet General Plan policies including Goal C4, and Policies C-4.1, C-4.2, C-4.5, C-4.6, CSI 5.5, OS-6.1, OS 7.1, OS 7.9, OS 7.10, OS 7.11, OS-7.12, and OS-8.6 which would further minimize impacts. There is a less-than-significant LST impact on nearby sensitive receptors, thus there is no nexus for further mitigation. No further response is warranted.

Comment A3.9: This comment provides a list of additional resources that include PDFs and Mitigation measures to help reduce air quality and GHG impacts.

Response A3.9: As described previously in Response A3.3 through Response A3.8, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed air quality thresholds related to DPM and LSTs, and impacts related to human health, cancer risks, and localized air quality would be less than significant. Thus, additional mitigation to reduce DMP or localized emissions is not required.

The Project would implement existing regulations and the mitigation measures related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, many of which are consistent with the comment’s recommended measures. The Table below compares the comment’s recommended measure with the measures currently applied to the Project. As detailed below, many of the recommended measures are required to be implemented by existing regulations and/or are included in Draft EIR mitigation measures. The measures that are not included are either not applicable to the Project, not required as Project impacts related to the recommended measure would not occur, or because the Project applicant and the City do not have the authority to require the measure and therefore are infeasible, as detailed below.

Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability Require zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks, such as heavy-duty trucks with
natural gas engines that meet the California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB) adopted optional NOx
emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible.

Warehouses in southern California are not required to
monitor or limit what types of trucks can enter warehouse properties. To impose such a condition on the Project
would highly limit the potential tenants/building
operations and implementing the measure would require
extensive employee involvement to monitor each truck
which enters the Project and refuse entry to nonqualifying trucks. This measure is also not enforceable as there is no known timing for when “cleaner” trucks would be commercially available. Due to the infeasibility and enforceability of this recommended measure, it has not
been included.

Require a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of
cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant
adverse air quality impacts.

The City and the future tenants of the buildings would not be able to enforce the types of technology (i.e., zeroemissions or near-zero emissions) on all of the trucks accessing the Project site as these trucks would be
operated by service providers outside of the proposed
Project’s control. It is infeasible to both implement and enforce the types of vehicles driving to the site that are not owned or contracted by warehouse tenants and/or
operators. For example, future tenants would not be able to control the types of FedEx, UPS, postal, or other

Page 65 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 75 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-25
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability delivery trucks that access the site. This measure is also not enforceable as there is no known timing for when
“cleaner” trucks would be commercially available. Due
to the infeasibility and enforceability of this
recommended measure, it has not been included.

Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document.

If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this
higher activity level.

The Draft EIR evaluates full occupation/capacity of the proposed building and identifies the maximum daily
emissions that would occur from both construction and
operation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not
exceed the number of daily truck trips that was
evaluated in the Draft EIR. Should there be future
proposed changes to the Project, such as an increase in square footage, that may have the potential to increase vehicle trips, truck trips, or other sources of air quality emissions, a CEQA analysis would be required evaluate
the potential impacts related to the increase. Should
additional potential impacts be identified, new
mitigation measures would be applied and this particular mitigation measure language has not been included.

Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or, at a minimum, provide electrical infrastructure, and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard
auxiliary equipment. Where appropriate, include
environmental analyses to evaluate and identify
sufficient electricity and supportive infrastructures in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections in the CEQA document.

The proposed Project would include 64 EV charging
parking spaces. The proposed Project does not include
cold storage so trucks accessing the site are not expected to have TRUs that would be needed to be hooked up.

Therefore language for this particular mitigation
measure language has not been included.

Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar
energy arrays.

The proposed Project would include a 100% solar ready
roof. this particular mitigation measure language has not been included.

Use light-colored paving and roofing materials. As shown in Figure 5.1-1, Project Renderings, within Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project would feature a white roof as well as a mostly white and light gray façade. this particular mitigation measure
language has not been included.

Design the proposed Project such that truck entrances
and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the proposed Project site.

As discussed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, Project
Description, the Project would include six driveways
along Simpson Road and truck movement to and from the
Project site would directly access the City of Hemet truck route utilizing the Simpson Road and Warren Road
intersection. Trucks accessing the site via the available truck route on Simpson Road on the north side of the
property would not travel past the sensitive land uses to the southeast. No aspect of the proposed Project would
require a change to the truck route network. this
particular mitigation measure language has not been
included.

Design the proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the proposed Project site to ensure no
trucks are queuing outside.

As shown on Figure 3-7 of the Draft EIR, Conceptual Site Plan, sliding gates would be located on the entrances of each truck court, located within the parking lot of each building and not adjacent to the roadways. this
particular mitigation measure language has not been
included.

Page 66 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 76 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-26
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability Design the proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the proposed Project site is as far away as
feasible from sensitive receptors.

As shown on Figure 3-7 of the Draft EIR, Conceptual Site Plan, truck courts for Building 1 would be located on the west and east sides of the building and the truck court in Building 2 would be facing west towards building 1. Thus, the truck courts and loading docks would be positioned
away from any sensitive receptors. this particular
mitigation measure language has not been included.

Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing sufficient overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

As discussed in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, Project
Description, the proposed Project would provide 419
truck trailer parking stalls which would provide sufficient parking for trucks accessing the site. this particular
mitigation measure language has not been included.

Comment A3.10: This comment provides additional resources to incorporate further mitigation measures to the proposed Project.

Response A3.10: As described in the previous responses A3.3 through A3.7, the Project would not exceed thresholds and additional mitigation is not required. The commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide substantial evidence for the determination that the Project will not be able to achieve any mitigation beyond what was identified in the proposed mitigation measures is unsubstantiated. Moreover, this comment is introductory, and the commenter does not provide additional data or specific measures for consideration or incorporation under this specific comment. As discussed on page 5.8-3 of the Draft EIR, 79% of Project emissions would primarily result from mobile source emissions, both vehicle and truck. There are no available feasible Project measures that would further reduce vehicular and truck emissions to below the GHG threshold, since neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions and/or available technologies at a cumulative level. As addressed above in Response A3.9, the proposed Project would include 64 EV charging parking spaces and 100% solar-ready roofs to mitigate emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are required to be developed for the proposed Project.

Comment A3.11: This comment states that if the Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, air permits from SCAQMD will be required and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The comment continues by saying that if SCAQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, the Lead Agency must consult with SCAQMD and is included in deciding on the adequacy of the CEQA Document. The comment concludes by saying that the Final EIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD permits and to identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency.

Response A3.11: As discussed in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project was conservatively assumed to include installation of a 238-horsepower diesel-powered fire pump which is estimated to operate for up to 1 hour per day, 1 day per week for up to 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing purposes.

Emissions associated with the stationary diesel-powered emergency fire pumps were calculated using CalEEMod. Thus, use of the fire pump was included in the analysis for operational emissions. Building occupants are assumed to be warehouse distribution and logistics operators and light manufacturers; however, specific tenants and uses are currently unknown. Future occupants would be processed through the City and SCAQMD’s permitting system. Should future tenants require any stationary equipment such as an emergency generator, fire pump, or other machinery, a permit from SCAQMD would be required, and would be ensured by the City’s permitting process. In addition, the SCAQMD has been identified as a CEQA Responsible Agency in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR in Table 3-6, Project Approvals/Permits.

Page 67 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 77 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-27
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment A3.12: This comment states that the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. If the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendation provided in the comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why comments are not accepted must be provided.

Response A3.12: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. According to State CEQA Guidelines, written responses to comments provided throughout the public comment period will be provided at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final 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 A3.13: This comment includes an email SCAQMD has received the Draft EIR and is being reviewed.

The comment requests all technical documents related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project to be uploaded to a Dropbox link for SCAQMD review.

Response A3.13: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed by the City to SCAQMD staff on June 5, 2024. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.
.

Page 68 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 78 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-28
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A4: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2 pages)

Page 69 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 79 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-29
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 70 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 80 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-30
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A4: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, received June 28, 2024
Comment A4.1: This comment discusses the extent of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) plan check process. The comment continues in explaining that the District received the NOA related to the Project but did not review the Project in detail. The comment states that the comment letter provides the District’s comments.

Response A4.1: 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 A4.2: The comment states that the Project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities proposed in the area.

Response A4.2: This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to City decisionmakers as part of the Final 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 A4.3: This comment states that the Project involves proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, Southwest Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line J and Southwest Hemet Master Drainage Plan Lateral B-1, and Southwest Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line I to protect the site and provide an adequate outlet into Salt Creek Channel and that the District will accept ownership of those facilities upon written request from the City. In addition, the Project Applicant will be required to enter into an agreement establishing terms and conditions with the District and that all fees and permits shall be required.

Response A4.3: As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not modify Master Drainage Plan Line J, Lateral B-1, or Line I. The Project proposes an onsite 36-inch private storm drain which would include a bubble up overland release to Salt Creek Channel. Moreover all proposed Project related development would be required to apply for a MS4 NPDES permit, develop a SWPPP, adhere to all applicable City of Hemet General Plan policies, and observe BMPs in site construction and operation. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Comment A4.4: This comment continues the checklist and states that if the Project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature or an extension of the District’s facilities, the District would consider a written request for ownership of such facilities by the City and the Project Applicant would enter into a cooperative Agreement.

Response A4.4: As discussed in Response A4.3, the only storm drain larger than 36 inches in diameter is proposed onsite and would be private. The Project Applicant would pay all necessary development feesand this comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Final 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 A4.5: This comment continues through the checklist and states that the Project is located within the limits of the Area Salt Creek Channel – Hemet South Drainage Plan and if the Project proposes additional impervious surface area, applicable fees would need to be paid prior to building permit issuance.

Response A4.5: The Project would be required to pay all applicable fees through standard conditions of approval and permitting requirements. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Page 71 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 81 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-31
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment A4.6: This comment states an encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction activities occurring within District rights-of-way, specifically Salt Creek Channel. The comment describes that if a storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation would be required.

Response A4.6: The Project does not propose any construction-related activities within District right of way or facilities, including Salt Creek Channel. As discussed above in Responses A4.3 and A4.4, the Project proposes an onsite 36-inch private storm drain which would include a bubble up overland release to Salt Creek Channel. As such, the Project would not include storm drains directly connecting to Salt Creek Channel.

Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Comment A4.7: This comment states that the District’s comments dated April 11, 2023, are still valid.

Response A4.7: The comments provided in the District’s letter dated April 11, 2023, are the same comments provided in Letter A4 herein. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Comment A4.8: The comment states that the Project would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board and clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined a permit has been granted or the Project is shown exempt.

Response A4.8: As discussed on Draft EIR page 5.10-18 of Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, the proposed infiltration basin would capture the 72-hour rainfall depth for a 100-year 3- hour rain event, per the City’s LID requirements. Any additional runoff volume would be discharged via an outlet pipe and conveyed downstream to Salt Creek Channel with a maximum outlet flow rate equal or less than the existing condition 100-year and 3-hour storm event. Further, the BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation. As part of the permitting approval process, the proposed drainage, water quality design, and engineering plans would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department to ensure they meets the City’s NPDES Permit requirements and limit the potential for erosion and siltation.

Comment A4.9: The comment states that if the Project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain then the City should require the Applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require the Applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the Project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

Response A4.9: As discussed on Draft EIR page 5.10-20 within Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, according to FEMA FIRM Map 06065C2085G, the Project site is located within a “0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Zone X” flood plain area, defined as areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. In addition, Zone X flood plain areas are outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed Project is located outside any 100-year flood zones and has low risk due to flooding. As such, the Project would not require a CLOMR or LOMR from FEMA.

Comment A4.10: The comment states that the Project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all mitigation measures in the CEQA document and all other federal, State, and local environmental rules and regulations.

Response A4.10: This comment is informational in nature. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted, However, this comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Final EIR. .

Page 72 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 82 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-32
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment A4.11: The comment states that if a natural watercourse or flood plain is impacted by the Project, the City should require the Applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Response A4.11: The Project would not impact any natural watercourse or mapped floodplain. No further response is warranted.

Page 73 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 83 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-33
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A5: Morongo Band of Mission Indians (1 page)

Page 74 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 84 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-34
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A5: Morongo Band of Mission Indians, dated June 28, 2024 Comment A5.1: This comment states that the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) Tribal Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the Draft EIR and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, and the Tribe has no further comments on the Project.

Response A5.1: 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 A5.2: This comment states that the City is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures agreed upon are carried out by the Project proponent and a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement must be established with MBMI prior to the start of Project ground-disturbing construction.

Response A5.2: As discussed in Mitigation Measure TCR-1, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) for the Project.

The City will ensure all listed mitigation measures are adhered to through compliance with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as included in Chapter 4.0 of this Final EIR.

Comment A5.3: This comment states that MBMI reserves the right to continue AB 52 consultation until the Project is complete or if circumstances make further communication necessary, in order to ensure that proper mechanisms are in place should cultural resources or tribal cultural resources be found. The comment requests that the City notify the Tribe when the Project is scheduled to begin and provides contact information for any questions.

Response A5.3: This comment is informational 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

Page 75 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 85 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-35
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter A6.1: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (4 pages)

Page 76 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 86 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-36
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 77 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 87 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-37
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 78 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 88 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-38
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 79 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 89 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-39
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter A6: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla, dated July 1, 2024 Comment A6.1: This comment states that the Tribe agrees with the mitigation measures and has no further comments on the Draft EIR.

Response A6.1: This comment is informational 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.

Page 80 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 90 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-40
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter O1: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (2 pages)

Page 81 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 91 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-41
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 82 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 92 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-42
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter O1: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy, dated June 10, 2024
Comment O1.1: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) requesting the notice of availability and Draft EIR for review when it is available. The comment provides a summary of the Project Description. The letter also requests mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related to the Project.

Response O1.1: CARE CA will be added to the notification list and provided future notices for the Project and Hearings. This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the Final EIR.

Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Page 83 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 93 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-43
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter O2: Advocates for the Environment (5 pages)

Page 84 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 94 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-44
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 85 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 95 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-45
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 86 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 96 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-46
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 87 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 97 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-47
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 88 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 98 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-48
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter O2: Advocates for the Environment, dated June 24, 2024 Comment O2.1: This comment states that Advocates for the Environment submits this comment letter regarding the Draft EIR for the Newland Simpson Road Warehouse Project with comments regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis.

Response O2.1: 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
Comment O2.2: This comment states that the proposed Project should utilize a net-zero significance threshold for GHG emissions in order to comply with California’s policy to be net-zero by 2045. The comment then lists some examples of two large mixed use projects in California that utilized net-zero thresholds. The comment concludes by stating that the net-zero GHG significance threshold is well-supported by plans such as CARB, and the Project should adopt the threshold.

Response O2.2: The Project proposes industrial development at the site, whereas the examples provided in this comment refer only to non-industrial projects. Therefore, the examples provided in this comment do not necessarily apply to the Project and are not reliable.

Moreover, this Project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and was evaluated against SCAQMD’s thresholds and supported by substantial evidence. The Project was found to have a significant impact on GHG and the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10, which incorporates measures to reduce GHG emissions during Project operation. The application of a net-zero threshold is unprecedented for warehouse projects and would effectively result in a moratorium on such facilities within the city. While the application of a net-zero threshold may be appropriate and feasible for residential projects, such as the two mentioned by the commentor, it is not appropriate to apply such a threshold to warehouse projects where the vast majority of operational GHG emissions result from mobile-source emissions.

Additionally, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan includes overall state goals, therefore the referenced goal is not a Project specific goal. The Project would provide contemporary, energy-efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. The proposed Project would not interfere with the State’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85% below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 5.8-13 in the Draft EIR. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of a, 85% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279. Therefore, the Project not being constructed as net zero emissions does not conflict with the GHG significance threshold or any plan, policy, or goal related to GHG. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.3: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not quantitatively analyze the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures for reducing GHG emissions and that the conclusion that there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would reduce emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. The comment concludes that the Draft EIR should include more mitigation to reduce the Projects GHG emissions.

Response O2.3: Draft EIR page 5.8-12 of Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions describes that GHG emissions generated from the proposed Project at buildout are primarily associated with vehicle and truck trips. Draft EIR Table 5.8-2 shows that the Project would generate a net total of approximately 10,362.39 MTCO2e per year, and that 8,272 MTCO2e (79%) is from mobile sources. The Draft EIR also explains how and why there is no way to quantify the reductions from implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10 in the CalEEMod, and that neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Hemet can reduce

Page 89 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 99 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-49
Final EIR
April 2025
emissions from trucks and vehicles; and therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

The commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide substantial evidence for the determination that GHG impacts of the Project would be significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated. The commenter does not provide additional data or specific measures for consideration or incorporation. Responses to additional comments provided by the commenter related to this comment are provided below (Response to Comment O2.5 to O2.7). The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.4: This comment states that the Project did not adequately explore all possible mitigation measures in order to reduce the GHG impacts. The comment states that the City did not demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures would represent the maximum feasible mitigation to support that the Projects impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Response O2.4: The commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide substantial evidence for the determination that the Project will not be able to achieve any mitigation beyond what was identified in the proposed mitigation measures is unsubstantiated and vague. As detailed in the previous response, under Response O2.3, approximately 79% of the GHG emissions from the Project would be generated by vehicle and truck emissions. The commenter does not provide additional data or specific measures for consideration or incorporation under this specific comment to reduce these emissions. As detailed previously the Draft EIR includes 10 specific GHG mitigation measures to reduce emissions. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.5: The comment brings forward additional mitigation such as a mandate limiting the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks or require the applicant to ensure that future tenants use hybrid or zero-emission commercial vehicles when these become reasonably available. The commenter also proposes to maintain a charging system for the vehicle fleet powered by solar panels.

Response O2.5: Neither the Project Applicant nor the City do not have the authority to require all heavyduty trucks entering or on the project site to be of a certain model year or engine type; or require future tenants and vendors to utilize heavy-duty vehicles for trips to and from the site that are zero-emissions. The future operational permitting requirements may include provision of trucking fleet incentives. However, the Project applicant and the City do not have the authority to require future tenants and vendors to enroll into incentive programs; and fleet upgrades are generally driven by existing SCAG and CARB emissions requirements. Thus, any measures that require zero-emission heavy-duty trucks are infeasible. However, the proposed Project would feature 64 EV charging stations and a 100% solar-ready roof which is beyond Title 24 requirements. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.6: This comment states that the Project is required to include fair-share mitigation for all significant cumulative impacts. The comment states that since the Project would likely contribute 310,871.7 MTCO2e over its lifetime, which the commenter states can be used as a starting place for additional nonoffset mitigation measures.

Response O2.6: As discussed on page 5.8-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 79% of Project emissions would primarily result from mobile source emissions, both vehicle and truck. There are no available feasible Project measures that would further reduce vehicular and truck emissions to below the GHG threshold, since neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions and/or available technologies. As addressed above in Response O2.5, the proposed Project would include 64 EV charging parking spaces and 100%

Page 90 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 100 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-50
Final EIR
April 2025
solar-ready roofs to mitigate emissions to the greatest extent feasible. The comment does not identify any specific feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicle and truck GHG emissions.

Comment O2.7: This comment provides examples of on-site mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Project in order to reduce GHG emissions. The comment suggests measures such as solar water heaters, automatic light switches, and going beyond the California Green Building Code requirements. The comment also suggests the use of solar panels capable of offsetting 100% of the energy demands of the buildings and obtaining a sustainable building certification such as LEED. The comment concludes by stating the City could also require the Applicant to purchase carbon offsets for the Projects remaining emission, which there is no evidence provided as to why offsets would be infeasible.

Response O2.7: 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.

While it is true that it may be possible to purchase carbon offsets, recent Court of Appeal decisions have cast considerable doubt on the use of such offsets to mitigate GHG impacts from land use development projects. In Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal, Ap.5th 467, the Court of Appeal invalidated a mitigation measure that required the purchase of offsets from a “CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard” (Id. At 510.) Although the court insisted its decision “should not be construed as blanked prohibition on using carbon offsets” to mitigate GHG missions under CEQA, it found numerous flaws with the measure at issue and failed to provide a clear roadmap for how to craft a similar valid measure. The court also declined to express an opinion on a number of issues, including whether offsets could potentially be used to mitigate more than 8% of a project’s emissions and the extent to which out-of-country offsets could be used. (Id. At 503, 513, n 27.) Subsequent to Golden Door (and within the last year), another measure requiring the purchase of offsets was similarly found to be invalid in an unpublished Court of Appeal decision, with the court finding the measure’s inclusion of additional standards for offsets did “not cure the defects found in Golden Door.” (Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Dec. 21, 2021, No. D077548) 2021 WL 6050624, at page 11.) In light of such uncertainty, the City finds that the carbon offsets are not feasible methods for mitigating the Project’s GHG emissions. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.8: This comment states the Draft EIR fails to assess all feasible mitigation and has not showed sufficient evidence to show that additional measures would be infeasible. The comment concludes by requesting to receive updates on the progress of the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21092.2.

Response O2.8: The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR evaluation. The commenters’ concerns were addressed above in Responses O2.2 through O2.7. 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, per CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, Draft EIR recirculation would not be warranted.

Page 91 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 101 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-51
Final EIR
April 2025
Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (162 pages)

Page 92 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 102 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-52
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 93 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 103 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-53
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 94 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 104 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-54
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 95 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 105 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-55
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 96 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 106 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-56
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 97 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 107 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-57
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 98 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 108 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-58
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 99 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 109 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-59
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 100 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 110 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-60
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 101 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 111 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-61
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 102 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 112 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-62
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 103 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 113 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-63
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 104 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 114 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-64
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 105 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 115 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-65
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 106 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 116 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-66
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 107 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 117 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-67
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 108 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 118 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-68
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 109 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 119 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-69
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 110 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 120 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-70
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 111 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 121 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-71
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 112 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 122 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-72
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 113 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 123 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-73
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 114 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 124 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-74
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 115 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 125 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-75
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 116 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 126 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-76
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 117 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 127 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-77
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 118 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 128 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-78
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 119 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 129 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-79
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 120 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 130 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-80
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 121 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 131 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-81
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 122 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 132 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-82
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 123 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 133 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-83
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 124 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 134 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-84
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 125 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 135 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-85
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 126 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 136 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-86
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 127 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 137 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-87
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 128 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 138 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-88
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 129 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 139 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-89
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 130 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 140 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-90
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 131 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 141 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-91
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 132 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 142 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-92
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 133 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 143 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-93
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 134 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 144 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-94
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 135 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 145 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-95
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 136 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 146 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-96
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 137 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 147 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-97
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 138 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 148 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-98
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 139 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 149 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-99
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 140 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 150 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-100
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 141 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 151 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-101
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 142 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 152 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-102
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 143 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 153 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-103
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 144 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 154 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-104
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 145 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 155 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-105
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 146 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 156 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-106
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 147 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 157 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-107
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 148 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 158 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-108
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 149 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 159 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-109
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 150 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 160 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-110
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 151 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 161 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-111
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 152 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 162 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-112
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 153 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 163 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-113
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 154 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 164 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-114
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 155 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 165 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-115
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 156 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 166 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-116
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 157 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 167 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-117
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 158 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 168 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-118
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 159 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 169 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-119
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 160 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 170 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-120
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 161 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 171 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-121
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 162 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 172 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-122
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 163 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 173 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-123
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 164 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 174 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-124
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 165 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 175 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-125
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 166 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 176 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-126
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 167 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 177 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-127
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 168 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 178 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-128
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 169 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 179 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-129
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 170 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 180 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-130
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 171 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 181 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-131
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 172 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 182 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-132
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 173 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 183 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-133
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 174 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 184 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-134
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 175 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 185 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-135
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 176 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 186 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-136
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 177 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 187 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-137
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 178 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 188 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-138
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 179 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 189 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-139
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 180 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 190 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-140
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 181 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 191 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-141
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 182 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 192 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-142
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 183 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 193 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-143
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 184 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 194 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-144
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 185 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 195 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-145
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 186 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 196 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-146
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 187 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 197 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-147
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 188 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 198 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-148
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 189 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 199 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-149
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 190 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 200 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-150
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 191 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 201 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-151
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 192 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 202 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-152
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 193 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 203 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-153
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 194 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 204 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-154
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 195 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 205 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-155
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 196 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 206 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-156
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 197 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 207 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-157
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 198 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 208 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-158
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 199 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 209 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-159
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 200 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 210 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-160
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 201 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 211 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-161
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 202 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 212 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-162
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 203 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 213 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-163
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 204 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 214 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-164
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 205 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 215 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-165
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 206 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 216 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-166
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 207 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 217 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-167
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 208 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 218 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-168
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 209 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 219 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-169
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 210 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 220 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-170
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 211 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 221 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-171
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 212 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 222 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-172
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 213 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 223 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-173
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 214 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 224 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-174
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 215 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 225 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-175
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 216 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 226 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-176
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 217 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 227 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-177
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 218 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 228 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-178
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 219 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 229 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-179
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 220 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 230 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-180
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 221 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 231 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-181
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 222 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 232 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-182
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 223 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 233 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-183
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 224 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 234 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-184
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 225 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 235 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-185
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 226 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 236 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-186
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 227 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 237 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-187
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 228 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 238 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-188
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 229 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 239 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-189
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 230 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 240 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-190
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 231 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 241 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-191
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 232 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 242 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-192
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 233 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 243 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-193
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 234 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 244 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-194
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 235 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 245 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-195
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 236 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 246 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-196
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 237 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 247 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-197
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 238 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 248 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-198
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 239 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 249 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-199
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 240 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 250 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-200
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 241 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 251 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-201
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 242 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 252 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-202
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 243 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 253 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-203
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 244 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 254 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-204
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 245 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 255 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-205
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 246 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 256 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-206
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 247 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 257 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-207
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 248 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 258 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-208
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 249 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 259 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-209
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 250 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 260 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-210
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 251 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 261 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-211
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 252 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 262 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-212
Final EIR
April 2025

Page 253 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 263 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-213
Final EIR
April 2025
Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated June 28, 2024 Comment O3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Additionally, it states that GSEJA requests to be notified regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings for the Project.

Response O3.1 GSEJA will be added to the City of Hemet’s notification list and will be notified of any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings regarding the proposed Project.

The comment is introductory in nature 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 O3.2: This comment includes a project summary of the proposed Project. The comment also lists the discretionary actions needed to complete the Project.

Response O3.2: The comment 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 O3.3: The comment states that the EIR does not accurately describe the Project. This comment expresses concern that the Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project that includes the Newland Kirby Project, which is an 850,640 square foot warehouse project in the City of Hemet, and states that the proposed Project should be analyzed along with the Newland Kirby Project. The comment states that the Project includes the construction and operation of all Newland buildings.

Response O3.3: The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of an environmental impact or substantial evidence that the Newland Kirby Project is directly tied to the Newland Simpson Project, and therefore the commenter’s assertions that the Project is part of a larger piecemealed project are based on speculation.

The commenter’s explanation of piecemealing is inaccurate. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger Newland development. Activities that would operate independently of one another and can be implemented separately may be treated as separate projects under CEQA if one activity is not a foreseeable consequence of the other (see Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 281). Generally, courts have considered distinct activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together: (1) when the project under review is designed to provide the necessary first step toward a larger development; and (2) when development of the project under review requires or presumes completion of another activity. Neither scenario is appliable here. Instead, each of the projects identified have independent utility. That is, the approval or denial of one project has no effect on the other projects, and none of the projects are dependent upon the existence of any of the other projects. The Newland Kirby Project was submitted separately from the proposed Project and is not a phase of the proposed Project. Further, the Newland Kirby Project and associated EIR Addendum was approved on December 5, 2023, by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Draft EIR accurately represents the whole of the action and evaluates the potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. The proposed Project is limited to development and operation of the Project site and is not part of other development projects.

Comment O3.4: The comment states that the Project Description does not provide a floor plan, detailed site plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, grading plans or detailed elevations. The comment states that a few figures have been edited to remove meaningful information. The comment requests that the EIR must be revised to include an unedited floor plan, grading plan, site plan, and project narrative for public review.

Page 254 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 264 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-214
Final EIR
April 2025
Response O3.4: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” The proposed Project is thoroughly described within Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. In addition, a Conceptual Site Plan, Building Elevations, a Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Project Renderings are provided as Figures 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, and 5.1-1, in Section 3.0, Project Description and Section 5.1, Aesthetics respectively. Analysis under this DEIR have all utilized these same graphics and plans. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Details including the floor area ratio are provided in the Project Description as well as on Table 5.1-1. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts.

As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design. As such, detailed grading plans for all buildings are not required to be included in the Draft EIR’s Project Description and a general description of the Project and conceptual plans are allowed. Should the Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the appropriate City departments prior to any construction on the Project site.

Comment O3.5: The comment states that the Project Description does not provide detailed information regarding each discretionary action including the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for both parking and building height. The comment concludes in stating that the EIR must be revised to include the City’s requests associated with each discretionary action.

Response O3.5: As stated previously in Response O3.4, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” The proposed Project is thoroughly described within Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design.

However, in response to the comment, Table 3-6 from the Draft EIR has been revised, as provided below and captured within Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR:

Table 2-3: Project Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approval and Decisions
City of Hemet
Project – Discretionary Approvals
City of Hemet Planning
Commission • Recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial of the Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Parcel Map
• Recommend that the City Council reject or certify this EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 255 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 265 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-215
Final EIR
April 2025
Public Agency Approval and Decisions
City of Hemet City Council • Approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map • Reject or certify this EIR along with appropriate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Subsequent City of Hemet and Ministerial Approvals
City of Hemet Implementing
Approvals • Approval of a variance for building height (5-foot height increase) • Approval of a variance for parking spaces (70 spaces below required amount)
• Approve Final Parcel Maps, lot line adjustments, or parcel mergers, as may be appropriate
• Approve precise site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation plan(s), as may be appropriate
• Issue Grading Permits
• Issue Building Permits
• Issue Occupancy Permits
• Approve Road Improvements Plans
• Issue Encroachment Permits
• Accept public right-of-way dedications
• Approve Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board • Issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit • Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit South Coast Air Quality
Management District • Permits and approvals associated with the operation of stationary equipment, if required
Eastern Municipal Water
District • Approval of design conditions, water, and sewer improvement plans Riverside County Flood
Control & Water Conservation
District
• Approval of storm drain connections, if applicable
Comment O3.6: The comment refers to comments provided by SWAPE, which are included as an attachment to the comment letter.

Response O3.6: Refer to Responses O3.40 through O3.52 in which the comments presented by SWAPE are addressed.

Comment O3.7: This comment states that the Draft EIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project to the surrounding community. The comment states that according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The proposed Project’s census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for ozone burden, the 46th percentile for particulate matter 2.5 burden, and the 65th percentile for solid waste facility impacts. The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution.

Response O3.7: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water,

Page 256 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 266 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-216
Final EIR
April 2025
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Moreover, CEQA also requires a project evaluate its impacts in relation to changes in an area’s population, housing needs and coverage under adequate public services. The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are social issues that are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice.

CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the Draft 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.

The Draft EIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project. Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area 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.

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 AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Also, a Mobile Source 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 (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 heavy-duty 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 than0.01, 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

Page 257 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 267 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-217
Final EIR
April 2025
be1.29, 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 O3.8: This comment states that the EIR does not adequately analyze the Projects consistency with the AQMP as the Project requires a land use change from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P) which was not analyzed by SCAG.

Response O3.8: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The General Plan Amendment was discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 3- 13, 3-35, 5.11-19, and 5.13-6. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project site has an existing zoning designation of Business Park, and the General Plan Amendment is required for the sites General Plan Land Use designation to be consistent with the existing zoning. 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. According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for the city of Hemet, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 18,500 additional jobs (from 21,700 to 40,200), yielding an 85% growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 42,500 between 2016 and 2045 (from 81,500 to 124,000). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 1,158 employees, which represents approximately 2.72% of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 6.26% of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. According to the Employment Development Department, as of August 2023, Hemet’s unemployment rate was approximately 6.3%. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City under its buildout conditions.

Comment O3.9: This comment states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved energy compliance modeling software. The comment states that since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made and a revised EIR with modeling in one of the three approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Response O3.9: The commenter incorrectly assumes the purpose of Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs. The approved programs serve the purpose of being used under the performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for Energy Standards. The programs mentioned are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Additionally, the Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.10: The comment states that the EIR does not have meaningful evidence to support its conclusions that there would be a less than significant impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise within two miles of a public airport. The comment explains that the Project is required to be reviewed by the

Page 258 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 268 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-218
Final EIR
April 2025
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) after the EIR public review period, which is deferred mitigation. The comment also notes that the building heights listed in the EIR (60 feet) are different from those in the RCALUC application (52 feet).

Response O3.10: The proposed Project was approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission on June 13, 2024. The following revisions has been included in Chapter 3, Errata:

Due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e., the proposed General Plan Amendment), the City of Hemet is required, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, to refer the proposed Project to the ALUC for ALUC review. On June 13, 2024, the proposed Project was found to be consistent with the 2017 Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by RCALUC. The proposed Project would comply with this ALUC notification and all other applicable rules and regulations as they pertain to the Hemet-Ryan Airport and airport safety. Overall, because the proposed Project is not located within compatibility zones A through D of the Hemet-Ryan Land Use Compatibility Plan or the designated Hemet-Ryan Airport noise contours; and it would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site.

The Draft EIR analyzed the proposed Project buildings at a height of 60 feet in order to include the most conservative analysis. In accordance with the Conditions of Approval provided by the RCALUC, any changes to building area or intensity are subject to an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria. Thus, this comment does not contain any information requiring further changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.11: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment requests that a revised EIR include an analysis of buildout of the Project and projects “in the pipeline” and their development intensity to determine if they would exceed the projected buildout scenario.

Response O3.11: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its program-level EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project-level environmental analyses may be based.

Cumulative projects are properly included in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the Draft EIR, including the Newland Kirby project. All previously-constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions.

Growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies, such as SCAG. According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for Hemet, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 18,500 additional jobs (from 21,700 to 40,200), yielding a 85% growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 42,500 between 2016 and 2045 (from 81,500 to 124,000). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 1,158 employees, which represents approximately 2.72% of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 6.26% of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. According to the Employment Development Department, as of August 2023, Hemet’s unemployment rate was approximately 6.3%. Additionally, as detailed on Draft EIR page 5.11-21, Building 1 would result in a FAR of 0.47 and Building 2 would result in a FAR of 0.39 which is below the maximum FAR of 0.60 allowed by the Business Park zoning, and related employment projections. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the

Page 259 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 269 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-219
Final EIR
April 2025
Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City.

Comment O3.12: This comment states that the EIR does not provide any meaningful evidence to support the Projects consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment also mentions that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of Table 5.11-1. The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to inconsistency with the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.

Response O3.12: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Responses O3.42 through O3.50 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. 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 O3.13: The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include any analysis regarding the inconsistency of the proposed Project with some of the General Plan goals and policies, and lists Policies which the Project has potential to conflict with.

Response O3.13: 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. However, for the purposes of this response, a consistency analysis between the Project and the relevant goals and policies that were listed by the comment is provided below. As shown in the Table below (also included as Table 5.11-2 in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR), the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant policies, and no environmental effect would result from Project and General Plan policy inconsistency.

Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU 3.9: Incompatible Uses. Prohibit uses that lead to the deterioration of residential neighborhoods, or
adversely affect it’s safety or residential character.

Consistent. The Project proposes to develop two
industrial warehouse buildings and a truck trailer parking lot on a site that is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The nearest residential receptor to the Project site would be residences located approximately 930
feet southeast of the Project site. The Project would be consistent with the sites existing Business Park zoning and

Page 260 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 270 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-220
Final EIR
April 2025
would include a General Plan Amendment to make the
General Plan Land Use designation consistent with the
existing zoning.

Policy LU 5.5: Public Spaces. Establish interesting and attractive focal points, public spaces or community uses within mixed use and transit oriented developments that are within walking distance and provide a source of
activity and identity for the district.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not include
any public spaces or community uses. The project is not a mixed use or transit-oriented development. Further, the Project site and adjacent areas do not provide a source of activity and identity for the district.

Policy LU 5.7: Land Use Flexibility Accommodate
flexibility in the overall form and integration of land uses within the mixed use districts provided that the district conforms to the purpose and principles of mixed use and smart growth concepts as embodied in the General Plan
and implementing plans and ordinances.

Consistent. The Project proposes to develop two
industrial warehouse buildings and a truck trailer parking lot that would provide for flexibility in tenants and future uses. However, the Project does not include and is not
adjacent to mixed uses. The Project site is zoned for
Business Park uses and located adjacent to two truck
routes designated by the General Plan and conveniently
located in proximity to Highway 74 and Highway 79
and has access to available infrastructure, including
roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within Southern California. Thus, the
Project would be consistent with the smart growth
concepts envisions by the General Plan.

Policy LU 5.8: Open Space. Require that adequate open
space and for larger projects, recreational or community serving uses, be incorporated in mixed use development
to serve the needs of the residents and businesses.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not consist
of a larger project or mixed use project that would
generate the need for open space. As detailed on page

5.13-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would
create jobs that would be filled by residents in the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and the surrounding
unincorporated Riverside County areas; and that
population growth that would result in the need for open space would not result from the Project.

Policy LU 10.2: Airport Land Use Compatibility. As part of the development review process, ensure appropriate
land use compatibility within airport compatibility zones by utilizing the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (2017) and the latest Department of
Aeronautics Handbook developed by the State of
California, an Airport Compatibility Study may be
warranted for Projects within the Airport Influence area.

Consistent. As discussed above in Response O3.10, the
proposed Project was found to be consistent with the
2017 Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
by RCALUC on June 13, 2024.

Policy LU 11.6: Skilled Labor Force Encourage a variety of businesses and industries to locate in the City including clean high technology industries, innovative start-up
companies, and commercial/professional office uses that provide high skill/high-wage job opportunities.

Consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with
providing for new businesses and industries to generate employment opportunities for skilled labor. As detailed on page 6-3 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would create jobs that a majority of which could likely be filled by residents in the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and the surrounding unincorporated Riverside County areas. The
City of Hemet has had unemployment rates ranging
between 5.1 and 20.2% from 2014 to 2024
Policy LU 11.7: Recruit New Business Pro-actively recruit new businesses that are currently under-represented in
the City, and will create synergy in attracting other
retailers to locate in the City
Consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with
providing for new businesses and industries in the City.

Page 261 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 271 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-221
Final EIR
April 2025
Comment O3.14: The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include any analysis regarding the inconsistency of the proposed Project with some of the General Plan goals and policies related to Mixed Use and does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure, including the potentially significant impacts.

Response O3.14: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s Mixed Use designation to Business Park. Thus, the 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.

Additionally, the Draft EIR does provide an analysis of buildout of the Project site pursuant to the existing Mixed Use Land Use designation. As detailed on page 8-21 of the Draft EIR, implementation of this alternative would bring more occupants and vehicle trips to the Project site that would result in an increase in air quality emissions, energy, and noise.

The Draft EIR also identifies all potentially significant as well as significant and unavoidable impacts in relation to the proposed Project. The reader is referred to Section 1.0 Executive Summary of the DEIR and Chapter 4 MMRP of this Final EIR for a description of the potential impacts and related mitigation.

Comment O3.15: The comment states that the proposed Project would not be consistent with the General Plan and its visions for the Mixed Use Area #4. The comment states that the EIR must be revised to show the inconsistencies with the Land Use District.

Response O3.15: As detailed in the previous response, the 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. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in consistency with the existing zoning. Development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its program-level EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project-level environmental analyses may be based. The General Amendment was discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 3-13, 3-35, 5.11-19, and

5.13-6. Potential General Plan inconsistencies that could result in an environmental effect are detailed within Table 5.11-2.

In addition, CEQA case law recognizes that the Lead Agency has the responsibility of determining whether any project is consistent with the lead agencies general plan, “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” (Save Our Peninsula Com. v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142.) Thus, the Lead Agency has decided that the proposed Project is consistent with the policy mentioned in the comment due to the reasons mentioned above.

Comment O3.16: The comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with General Plan Policy LU

1.12 Flexibility Over Time. The comment explains that the project would exceed the established intensity allowed in the general Plan and increase building square footage by 7%. The comment also states that the

Page 262 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 272 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-222
Final EIR
April 2025
EIR does not analyze the surrounding land use designations and must be revised to show inconsistency with the surrounding area.

Response O3.16: The comment confuses the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations. The site and surrounding areas are zoned for business park and mixed uses. There are different and sometimes inconsistent land use designations. As detailed on Draft EIR page 5.11-21, Building 1 would result in a FAR of 0.47 and Building 2 would result in a FAR of 0.39 which is below the maximum FAR of 0.60 allowed by the Business Park zoning. The General Amendment was discussed in the Draft EIR on page 3-13, 3-35, 5.11- 19, and 5.13-6. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project site has an existing zoning designation of Business Park and 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 comment also incorrectly states that there are no other parcels zoned for Business Park uses surrounding the Project site. However, two parcels, one adjacent to the southwest and one across Simpson Road to the northeast of the proposed Project site are each zoned for Business Park uses. In addition, the City of Hemet is a housing rich City. Thus, the inclusion of additional industrial jobs into the City due to employment markets would be consistent with the General Plan Policy mentioned in the comment.

CEQA case law recognizes that the Lead Agency has the responsibility of determining whether any project is consistent with the lead agencies General Plan, “the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” (Save Our Peninsula Com. v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142.) Thus, the Lead Agency has decided that the proposed Project is consistent with the Policy mentioned in the comment due to the reasons mentioned above.

Comment O3.17: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 1.13 Build a Strong Community as the Draft EIR does not provide any information of the City’s jobs/housing balance and would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

Response O3.17: The comment incorrectly states that the EIR does not provide any information regarding the City’s job/housing balance. The City’s jobs/housing balance is laid out in Table 5.13-5 in Section 5.13, Population and Housing. Both the table and the analysis within the section illustrate that the City is housing rich. Thus, additional employment from the Project would provide a benefit. As discussed in Section 5.15.7 Cumulative Impacts, while the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable Project specific VMT impact, implementation of the proposed Project would reduce VMT on a City-wide basis due to the City’s current lack of jobs for citizens residing in the area and that the Project would provide employment for local residents. Thus, the Project would not be inconsistent with the General Plan Policy mentioned in the comment and no further response is warranted.

Comment O3.18: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Goal LU-3 Avoid Land Use Conflict and provide compatible development, as the Project’s proposed business park land use is not compatible with the surrounding mixed uses surrounding the site. The comment states that Mixed Use Area #4 is envisioned to create a residential and retail/business park node and the proposed Project does not align with this vision. The comment also notes that the proposed Project would not be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 2.4, Concentrate Land Uses, as the Project site is located in an isolated part of the city surrounded by rural land.

Response O3.18: As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project site has an existing zoning designation of Business Park, and a General Plan Amendment would be required for the site’s General Plan Land Use designation to be consistent with the existing zoning. Approval of the proposed amendment would resolve the inconsistency with the existing Zoning Map. As discussed above, there are two

Page 263 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 273 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-223
Final EIR
April 2025
parcels, one adjacent to the southwest and one across Simpson Road to the Northeast that are each zoned for Business Park uses. In addition, parcels surrounding the Project are currently vacant or used for agricultural purposes. There are currently no proposed projects within the Project vicinity, including within the adjacent parcels which have a Business Park zoning designation and Mixed Use General Plan Land Use designation.

The Project proposes the development of two industrial warehouses on a site that is currently zoned for Business Park uses. The General Plan does not limit light industrial uses to parcels owned by the Metropolitan Water District, as inferred by the comment. In addition, residential land uses are allowed under the mixeduse land use designation but they are not required. Thus, the proposed industrial uses onsite would be consistent with the existing MU land use designation of the site as it is listed as an allowed use. The Project site is zoned for Business Park uses and located adjacent to two truck routes designated by the General Plan and conveniently located in proximity to Highway 74 and Highway 79 and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within southern California. Thus, the Project site is located in a prime location for the proposed industrial uses and is consistent with the smart growth concepts envisioned by the General Plan.

Contrary to the comment’s assumption that the change in land use would increase impacts in comparison to the Project, the Draft EIR provides an analysis of buildout of the Project site pursuant to the existing Mixed Use Land Use designation. As detailed on page 8-21 of Section 8.0, Alternatives of the Draft EIR, implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to agriculture and would bring more occupants and vehicle trips to the Project site that would result in an increase in air quality emissions, energy, and noise. Further, development of the site consistent with the existing zoning designation would not result in an incompatible development.

Comment O3.19: The comment states that the EIR does not have meaningful evidence to support its conclusions that there would be a less than significant impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise within two miles of a public airport. The comment explains that the Project is required to be reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) after the EIR public Review period, which is deferred mitigation. The comment also notes that the building heights listed in the EIR (60 feet) are different from those in the RCALUC application (52 feet).

Response O3.19: As discussed above in Response O3.10, the proposed Project was approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission on June 13, 2024. This information has been included in Chapter 3.0, Errata. Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan Policy mentioned in the comment. In addition, the Draft EIR analyzed the proposed Project buildings at a height of 60 feet in order to include the most conservative analysis. In accordance with the Conditions of Approval provided by the RCALUC, any changes to building area or intensity are subject to an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria. Thus, this comment does not contain any information requiring further changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.20: The comment states that the Draft EIR does not support the conclusions the proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 11.1, Attract New Businesses, as the Draft EIR does not provide any information about the wages of the employees, the tax revenue generated from the Project, or evidence that the unemployed population is qualified or interested in work in the industrial sector.

Response O3.20: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with the physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The project merits, including any economic and social effects of the project are not treated as effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the project’s potentially significant physical impacts

Page 264 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 274 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-224
Final EIR
April 2025
on the environment and does not include a discussion of tax revenue or employee wages. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) states that when responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers. Thus, information related to employee wages and tax revenue is not provided.

An analysis of the City’s unemployment rate was discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing. The Draft EIR stated “the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from within the City or the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Hemet as of August 2023 was 6.3%, and the County of Riverside was 5.4% (BLS, 2023). Due to these levels of unemployment, it is anticipated that new employees at the Project site would already reside within commuting distance and would not generate substantial needs for any housing.” Draft EIR page 6-3 describes that most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Hemet and surrounding communities. As discussed in further detail in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, on Table 5.13-4, the transportation and warehousing and utilities industries account for the third largest employment sector within the City of Hemet. Due to existing unemployment and the availability of a workforce, it is anticipated that new jobs that would be generated from Project implementation would be filled by people within the City of Hemet and surrounding communities. Thus, the proposed Project would bring jobs to the community that would be filled by members of the community, consistent with the General Plan Policy mentioned in the comment. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.21: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 11.9, Consider Industrial Use Locations, because the Project site is located in a prime location and would require a General Plan Amendment. The comment concludes that the revenue or benefits provided to the City is not discussed in the EIR and the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts and thus the Project is inconsistent with the Policy.

Response O3.21: The commenter incorrectly equates the use of prime location in the General Plan referring to sensitive sites used in the General Plan with the use in the Draft EIR which describes the Project site. The Project site is located adjacent to two truck routes designated by the General Plan and conveniently located in proximity to Highway 74 and Highway 79 and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within southern California. Thus, the Project site is located in a prime location for the proposed industrial uses that are consistent with the site’s existing Business Park zoning designation. As stated previously, the General Plan Amendment is required for the Project site to be consistent with the site’s Business Park zoning designation.

As described previously, the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the buildout of the Project site pursuant to the existing Mixed Use Land Use designation. As detailed on page 8-21 of Section 8.0, Alternatives of the Draft EIR, implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts to agriculture and would bring more occupants and vehicle trips to the Project site that would result in an increase in air quality emissions, energy, and noise in comparison to the proposed Project.

Ultimately, it is up to the City to determine what the Project benefits are and if they would outweigh any potential significant and unavoidable impacts. In accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093, in order to approve the Project, the City is required to determine that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. If the City approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the City shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If the City decides to approve the project and makes a SOC, the statement will be included in the record of the project approval and will be mentioned in the notice of determination.

Page 265 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 275 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-225
Final EIR
April 2025
Per Public Resources Code § 21002.1 (a), the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” Therefore, the Draft EIR is not intended to serve as the justification for adopting a SOC or as basis for the approval or denial of the Project, but to disclose the environmental consequences of approving the Project and a SOC. Through the public hearing process, the decision-makers within the City will take into consideration the environmental impacts caused by the Project in if it decides to approve the Project, a SOC will be required.

Comment O3.22: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy C 1.3, Traffic Flow, as implementation of the proposed Project would result in an unsatisfactory service level for 3 intersections, one of which is a Caltrans intersection. The comment states that the paying of fair share for road improvement does not count as mitigation as the improvements associated with the fees are not planned to occur at any certain time.

Response O3.22: 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, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Draft EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion as it shall not be considered an impact on the environment. Thus, Policy C 1.3 does not warrant a consistency analysis related to a potential environmental impact.

The comment states that identification of the Project’s fair share of identified improvements is not adequate if the improvement is not included in an existing DIF/TUMF program. As noted in above, level of service is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore any recommended roadway improvements, as well as Project fair-share payments, would not be part of the CEQA process or subject to the mitigation measures or mitigation monitoring as part of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Comment O3.23: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy C 4.6, Vehicle Mile Reduction, as the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

Response O3.23: While the proposed Project would result in a project specific significant and unavoidable VMT impacts, the proposed Project would reduce VMT on a City-wide basis due to the provision of employment for City residents. The Project would include California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) measures with the goal of reducing VMT in accordance with Senate Bill 375 and CARB, consistent with the General Plan Policy mentioned in the comment. Thus, while the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to Project specific VMT, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy O

3.23 in implementing measures to reduce VMT at a Citywide level. No further response warranted.

Comment O3.24: The comment states that the proposed Project fails to comply with the Housing Crisis Act/ Senate Bill (SB) 330/SB 8 as the Project does not provide replacement capacity for the reduced residential development as a result of the proposed Project. The comment supports this by stating the R-4 Zoning district permits the development of 3,199 dwelling units. The comment concludes that the Project must provide 3,199 replacement units elsewhere in the city in accordance with SB 330 and the loss of residential capacity should be included as a finding of significance.

Response O3.24: The commenter erroneously applies the requirements of SB 330 to the proposed Project.

As discussed on page 3-13 of the Draft EIR, the Project site has a zoning of Business Park (B-P) and not R-4.

Thus, there is no residential density assigned to the Project site. The General Plan Amendment is required in

Page 266 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 276 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-226
Final EIR
April 2025
order for the site’s General Plan Designation to be consistent with its existing zoning. As set forth in Government Code Section 65860, a jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance is required to be consistent with the General Plan. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65860 and is not required to upzone a different site or identify a replacement housing site pursuant to SB 330. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.25: This comment states that the Draft EIR failed to analyze the construction and operation of replacement housing that is required by SB 330 and thus is piecemealed. The comment concludes by stating that the ERI must analyze the whole of an action and include the analysis of the replacement units.

Response O3.25: As discussed above in Response O3.24, implementation of the proposed Project would not require the construction or operation of replacement sites, therefore they do not need to be included within the CEQA analysis. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.26: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment requests that a revised EIR include an analysis of buildout of the Project and projects “in the pipeline” and their development intensity to determine if they would exceed the projected buildout scenario.

Response O3.26: This comment is a dupicate of Comment O3.11, please see Response O3.11.

Comment O3.27: The comment states that the proposed Project would result in an imbalance of jobs housing by adding additional jobs in a job-rich community.

Response O3.27: The commenter incorrectly states that the projected jobs/housing ratio in the City of Hemet is 2.47 in 2016 and projected to be 2.26 in 2045. As seen in Table 5.13-5 of the Draft EIR, as of 2021, the City of Hemet has a jobs/housing ratio of 0.59 and is projected to have a jobs-housing ratio of 0.75. As stated in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, communities with a jobs-housing ratio of less than 1.19 are considered to be housing rich, thus the proposed Project would help the City reach a better job/housing balance by creating additional jobs in the community.

Comment O3.28: The comment states that the Draft EIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.

Response O3.28: Development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its programlevel EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project-level environmental analyses may be based. Cumulative projects, including the Newland Kirby project, are properly included in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the Draft EIR,. All previously constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions.

Page 267 of 1461 ends

14.A.

Page 277 of 2247 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-227
Final EIR
April 2025
employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. According to the Employment Development Department, as of August 2023, Hemet’s unemployment rate was approximately 6.3%. Additionally, as detailed on Draft EIR page 5.11-21, Building 1 would result in a FAR of 0.47 and Building 2 would result in a FAR of 0.39 which is below the maximum FAR of 0.60 allowed by the Business Park zoning, and related employment projections. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City.

Comment O3.29: The comment states that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the employees are expected to come from within the City or region, and the Draft EIR should be revised to support this claim with evidence of the available workforce and provide a definition for “commuting distance.”
Response O3.29: See previous Response O3.20. Despite the fact that the proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment, these actions are not considered to be precedent setting actions (defined as any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations), as they are commonly undertaken on a regular basis by many jurisdictions and relate specifically to the Project site.

Further, as elaborated above and throughout the Draft EIR in Section 5.3, Air Quality, 5.11, Land Use and Planning, and Section 5.13, Population and Housing, the Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area beyond what is forecasted, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Draft EIR page 6-3 describes that most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Hemet and surrounding communities. As discussed in further detail in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, on Table

5.13-4, the transportation and warehousing and utilities industries account for the third largest employment sector within the City of Hemet. Thus, due to existing unemployment and the availability of a workforce, it is anticipated that new jobs that would be generated from Project implementation would be filled by people within the City of Hemet and surrounding communities.

Comment O3.30: The comment states that the proposed Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy C 1.3, Traffic Flow, as implementation of the proposed Project would result in an unsatisfactory service level for 3 intersections. The comment states that the paying of fair share for road improvement does not count as mitigation as the improvements associated with the fees are not planned to occur at any certain time. The comment notes that some improvements associated with the fair share fees are listed in the Draft EIR, however some of the recommendations from Appendix N have been excluded and the Draft EIR should be revised to include all traffic improvements recommended in the report.

Response O3.30: As stated above in Response O3.22, 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, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the Draft EIR is not required to analyze impacts related to traffic congestion, as it does not constitute a potential impact to the environment. Thus, Policy C 1.3 does not warrant a consistency analysis related to potential environmental impacts.

Page 268 of 1461 ends

Hemet City CouncilApril 8, 2025

Hemet City Council
April 8, 2025