Hemet City Council
April 22, 2025

20.A.

8 • Riverside County as a whole is projected to grow steadily but at a slower rate compared to the individual cities.

Hemet is projected to grow from approximately 91,900 residents in 2020 to 126,500 by 2040, reflecting a substantial 37.6% increase. This population growth is likely to exacerbate the demand for affordable housing, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents. Ensuring access to affordable housing is critical to preventing displacement and maintaining economic diversity within the community.

When compared to neighboring jurisdictions like San Jacinto and Perris, Hemet’s growth rate of 37.6% from 2020 to 2040 is significant, though lower than San Jacinto's projected 64.4%. This variance indicates Hemet's potential to attract a diverse population, necessitating inclusive housing policies that cater to various demographic groups, including families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.

To accommodate the rising population, Hemet should continue to implement affordable housing initiatives such as developing new housing units and preserving existing affordable options.

Policymakers should continue to ensure that zoning regulations support mixed-income housing developments and incentivize builders to create affordable choices.

The consistent population increase suggests a stable demand for housing and services within Hemet.

However, as the population grows, the demand for housing will likely intensify. Given Hemet’s relatively affordable housing market, this influx may attract families, retirees, and individuals seeking cost-effective living arrangements. Yet, this growth could also exacerbate existing fair housing impediments, limiting equitable access to housing for certain demographic groups.

An increasing population will create a pressing need for enhanced infrastructure, including transportation, healthcare, education, and public safety services. City planners must proactively address these challenges to ensure a high quality of life for all residents. The demographic shifts accompanying this growth could lead to greater diversity, enriching Hemet’s cultural landscape.

However, this diversity may also present challenges regarding service delivery and community engagement, particularly if systemic barriers persist that inhibit access to housing and essential services for marginalized groups.

While the projected growth is encouraging, it raises concerns about sustainability and equity. Ensuring that infrastructure develops in tandem with population growth is crucial to prevent resource strain and maintain quality services. As housing demand escalates, there is potential for rising prices, which could undermine Hemet's attractiveness as an affordable option. This trend may disproportionately affect lower-income households and further exacerbate existing fair housing impediments, limiting their access to suitable housing options.

20.A.

9 Moreover, the anticipated population increase could intensify environmental pressures, such as increased traffic, pollution, and depletion of natural resources. Balancing growth with environmental sustainability is essential, but it must also emphasize equitable housing opportunities. The city must ensure that all residents can benefit from economic growth and that fair housing practices are upheld to prevent discrimination and exclusion.

In summary, while Hemet's population trend appears positive, it is vital for local government and stakeholders to prioritize fair housing initiatives. By addressing impediments to fair housing, investing in infrastructure, and fostering community engagement, the city can create a more inclusive and equitable environment for all residents. Collaborative efforts will be crucial in ensuring that Hemet not only thrives economically but also supports a diverse and vibrant community.

Age Distribution
The age distribution chart provides valuable insights into the demographics of various jurisdictions, which is essential for understanding the impediments to affordable housing. Here's how the age demographics relate to the challenges of ensuring affordable housing:

Age Distribution by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 64 65 or Over San Jacinto 9.0% 24.8% 20.5% 14.2% 12.4%
Hemet 6.7% 22.3% 16.9% 16.5% 22.1%
Menifee 6.9% 21.1% 17.6% 15.7% 20.0%
Perris 9.9% 31.8% 22.2% 9.6% 4.5%
Riverside County 7.7% 24.5% 19.9% 15.3% 11.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

Key Insights
• Hemet has the highest percentage of residents aged 65 or over at 22.1%, indicating a significant senior population, which may impact housing and healthcare services. • Perris has a notably high percentage of youth (31.8% in the 5 to 19 age group), suggesting a younger demographic that may require more educational facilities and youth services. • San Jacinto shows a balanced distribution across age groups, but still has a relatively high percentage of residents in the 5 to 19 age bracket (24.8%). • Menifee also has a significant proportion of seniors (20.0%) and a well-rounded age distribution, indicating a mix of families and older adults.
• Riverside County reflects a more average distribution, with percentages across age groups being relatively consistent.

Hemet has a notably high percentage of residents aged 65 and over (22.1%), the highest among the jurisdictions analyzed. This aging population often requires specific types of housing that are both

20.A.

10 accessible and affordable, such as single-story homes and senior living facilities. The growing number of seniors seeking affordable housing options may face challenges if suitable units are not available, increasing the risk of displacement and potential overcrowding in existing housing.

Additionally, Hemet has 22.3% of its residents aged 5 to 19, which is lower than Perris (31.8%) but still significant. This indicates a need for family-friendly housing options, including affordable homes and rentals. If Hemet fails to expand its affordable housing stock to accommodate young families, it risks losing potential residents who may seek more suitable housing in other areas, potentially leading to a demographic imbalance.

The working-age population in Hemet (ages 20 to 64) includes 16.9% aged 20 to 34 and 16.5% aged 35 to 64. This demographic is vital for the local economy, yet may struggle with affordability if housing costs rise without corresponding wage growth. As the demand for affordable housing increases, working individuals and families could face financial pressure, resulting in longer commutes or even displacement from the community.

With a significant portion of the population comprising seniors and working-age adults, the demand for affordable housing is expected to rise. Hemet’s affordable housing market may become increasingly strained if housing supply does not keep pace with population growth. Rising costs may disproportionately affect lower-income residents and those on fixed incomes, underscoring the urgent need for policies that promote the development and preservation of affordable housing.

The demographic trends also point to a need for robust infrastructure to support both seniors and families with children, including healthcare facilities, public transportation, and educational services.

Inadequate infrastructure can lead to heightened demand for housing in areas lacking these essential services, further straining the affordable housing market. If service availability does not match population growth, residents may encounter difficulties accessing necessary resources, leading to frustration and potential relocation.

In comparison to surrounding jurisdictions, Hemet's age distribution presents both challenges and opportunities for affordable housing. The high proportion of seniors and the presence of young families emphasize the need for targeted housing solutions that address diverse demographic needs. Without strategic planning and investment in affordable housing initiatives, Hemet risks worsening existing barriers to housing access, which could lead to economic and social challenges for its residents.

Policymakers must prioritize inclusive housing policies, ensure adequate infrastructure, and actively engage with the community to effectively tackle the impediments to affordable housing. By doing so,

20.A.

11 Hemet can cultivate a more equitable environment that supports its diverse population and enhances overall community well-being.

Racial and Ethnic Composition
The demographic data for Hemet, in comparison to nearby jurisdictions such as San Jacinto, Menifee, Perris, and Riverside County, offers important insights into potential impediments to fair housing.

Understanding these demographics helps identify specific challenges and needs within Hemet that may affect housing access and equity.

Race and Ethnic Percentages by Region
City/County White
(%)
Black or
African
American
(%)
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
(%)
Asian
(%)
Native
Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander (%)
Some
other
race
(%)
Two or
more
races
(%)
Hispanic or
Latino (of
any race)
(%)
San Jacinto 53.37 7.30 1.76 2.98 0.32 18.34 15.93 58.62 Hemet 36.6 8.08 1.39 2.71 0.09 17.29 13.29 49
Menifee 52.32 6.97 0.93 5.97 0.60 16.57 16.65 37.2
Perris 23.51 9.30 0.55 3.62 0.64 49.97 12.40 74.6
Riverside
County

46.84 6.47 0.97 6.86 0.33 23.64 14.89 49.5
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

Key Insights:
• Perris stands out with the highest percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents at 74.6%, indicating a significant demographic presence. Hemet follows with a substantial Hispanic population of 49%, highlighting its diverse community.
• Hemet has the lowest percentage of White residents at 36.6%. In contrast, San Jacinto (53.37%) and Menifee (52.32%) have notably higher percentages, indicating differing levels of racial composition across these jurisdictions.
• The percentages of Black or African American residents are relatively consistent among the jurisdictions, with Perris having the highest at 9.30%. Hemet’s figure is slightly lower at 8.08%, which reflects a diverse racial landscape but also presents challenges for equitable housing access.
• The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races varies across the jurisdictions, with Menifee having the highest at 16.65%. Hemet's multiracial population stands at 13.29%, suggesting a growing diversity that may require tailored housing policies to address the unique needs of these residents.

20.A.

12 Hemet has a White population of 36.6%, along with notable percentages of Black or African American residents (8.08%) and Hispanic or Latino residents (49%). This diverse demographic landscape indicates that Hemet faces unique housing needs compared to neighboring jurisdictions. In contrast, San Jacinto has a higher percentage of White residents (53.37%) and a similar Hispanic population (58.62%), while Perris exhibits a strikingly high percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents at 74.6%.

When compared to Menifee (52.32% White, 37.2% Hispanic) and Riverside County (46.84% White,

49.5% Hispanic), Hemet’s demographic makeup underscores an urgent need for affordable housing solutions tailored to lower-income and minority populations. This diversity impacts the types of housing policies and programs required to effectively address the community's needs.

With nearly half of Hemet's residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino, there is a critical demand for affordable housing that accommodates their cultural and economic needs. Insufficient housing options could increase the risk of displacement and overcrowding among these residents, a trend observed in other cities with high minority populations.

Hemet's lower percentage of White residents, combined with a significant Hispanic representation, raises concerns about economic disparities that can hinder access to affordable housing. Similar to Perris, where 74.6% of the population is Hispanic, many individuals in this demographic often face economic vulnerabilities, leading to systemic barriers in securing housing.

The diverse population of Hemet necessitates culturally relevant housing solutions and services.

Programs designed to assist Hispanic families with navigating housing options, understanding tenant rights, and accessing financial assistance are crucial for promoting fair housing.

Hemet's Hispanic population, at 49%, underscores the necessity for targeted housing strategies tailored specifically to this group. While Menifee and San Jacinto also have significant Hispanic communities, Hemet’s higher percentage indicates a more pressing need to address the unique housing challenges faced by these residents. Effective policies should focus on ensuring that affordable housing options are accessible and culturally relevant, and that they are situated close to essential community resources such as schools, healthcare facilities, and employment opportunities.

The demographic trends in Hemet, alongside those in neighboring cities, reveal a risk of socioeconomic segregation if housing options do not adequately reflect the community's diversity. If affordable housing solutions do not cater to the varied needs of different racial and ethnic groups, it could lead to unequal access and potential displacement of marginalized communities.

20.A.

13 To combat this, Hemet must adopt proactive measures that promote equitable housing opportunities for all residents. This involves not only increasing the supply of affordable housing but also ensuring that policies are inclusive, allowing all racial and ethnic groups to thrive within the community. By doing so, Hemet can foster a more integrated and equitable environment, reducing the likelihood of segregation and enhancing overall community well-being.

Given the significant Hispanic population, Hemet may face challenges related to discrimination in the housing market. This reinforces the importance of targeted enforcement of fair housing laws and initiatives that educate residents about their rights.

Hemet's demographic profile compared to its neighbors reveals both challenges and opportunities regarding fair housing. By understanding these dynamics and addressing the specific needs of its diverse community, Hemet can work toward a more equitable housing environment. Through inclusive policies and proactive strategies, the city can help mitigate barriers to fair housing and improve the quality of life for all its residents.

Educational Attainment
Education is a fundamental factor influencing economic opportunities and social mobility, and it plays a critical role in the analysis of impediments to affordable housing in Hemet. Approximately 16% of Hemet residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, significantly lower than the national average of around 32%. The educational attainment levels in the city are as follows:

Education Levels
Educational Attainment Percentage
High School Graduate 30%
Some College (No Degree) 30%
Bachelor’s Degree 16%
Graduate or Professional Degree 5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

The low level of educational attainment in Hemet has significant implications for the local workforce and economy. When a substantial portion of the population lacks higher educational qualifications, it typically results in a workforce with limited skills. This limitation can reduce the types of jobs available, often leading to lower wages and fewer opportunities for career advancement. Consequently, the economic development of the area may stagnate, as businesses seek out locations with a more skilled labor pool.

20.A.

14 Lower educational attainment is frequently correlated with lower income levels, creating a cycle where residents struggle to afford basic needs, including housing. As incomes remain low, the demand for affordable housing increases, placing additional pressure on an already strained housing market. When residents cannot secure adequate housing, it can lead to overcrowding and displacement, exacerbating social and economic inequalities within the community.

To break this cycle, Hemet could focus on enhancing educational opportunities, particularly for adults who may have missed out on higher education earlier in life. Programs aimed at adult education, vocational training, and skills development can significantly improve job prospects for residents. By increasing educational attainment, residents are more likely to secure higher-paying jobs, which in turn would enable them to afford better housing options.

Investing in education not only supports individual growth but also fosters broader economic development in Hemet. As the workforce becomes more skilled and better compensated, the local economy can thrive, leading to an increased demand for diverse housing options. This, in turn, can help create a more equitable housing landscape, where all residents have the opportunity to access affordable and suitable housing. By prioritizing educational initiatives, Hemet can address the underlying impediments to affordable housing and promote a healthier, more prosperous community overall.

Economic Characteristics
The economic and income characteristics of Hemet significantly influence the demand for various housing types and units, which is essential for ensuring fair housing choices. As employment opportunities grow in the city, the demand for housing is expected to rise, highlighting the importance of developing and maintaining a diverse housing stock to cater to residents of varying income levels.

1. Employment and Wage Scale
Employment characteristics within a city play a crucial role in determining housing needs and trends.

The ability of the population to afford housing directly correlates with their employment status and income levels. Table below summarizes the projected employment growth for Hemet and its surrounding cities, along with Riverside County, from 2012 to 2040, based on SCAG’s 2016-2040 Final Growth Forecast. This forecast considers past trends, regional growth policies, and various assumptions to project population, household, and employment figures.

20.A.

15 Regional Employment Growth
Jurisdiction 2012 2020 2035 2040 % Change
2012-2020
% Change
2020-2040
Numeric
Change
2012-2040
San Jacinto 5,900 8,800 15,300 17,800 49.2% 102.3% 11,900 Hemet 21,000 27,200 39,500 45,500 29.5% 67.3% 24,500
Menifee 10,300 16,300 22,600 23,500 58.3% 44.2% 13,200
Perris 15,100 23,000 31,200 32,200 52.3% 40.0% 17,100
Riverside
County
617,000 849,000 1,112,000 1,175,000 37.6% 38.4% 558,000 Source: SCAG 2016-2040 TRP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report Hemet is projected to experience an employment growth rate of 116.7% (24,500 new jobs) between 2012 and 2040, surpassing the county average by 26%. This job growth presents a critical opportunity for Hemet to expand its housing options, enabling fair housing access for its current and future workforce.

2. Employment by Sector
The Table below illustrates the employment distribution by sector in Hemet based on the updated 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) data, which helps identify potential income levels and associated housing needs.

Employment Sectors
Industry People Employed Percent of City Employed
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, and mining 350 1.3% Construction 2,800 10.2%
Manufacturing 1,950 7.1%
Wholesale trade 670 2.4%
Retail trade 4,300 15.6%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 2,050 7.4% Information 430 1.6%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental leasing 820 3.0% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
2,300 8.4%
Educational services, health care, and social assistance 5,800 21.0% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
3,250 11.8%
Other services, except public administration 1,450 5.3% Public administration 1,400 5.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022

20.A.

16 The sector with the highest employment is Education Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance, representing 21.0% of jobs in Hemet. This sector's prominence can significantly impact income levels, which directly affects housing choices and availability.

Unemployment Rates and Housing Affordability
The chart below presents the total unemployment rates for various jurisdictions, highlighting Hemet with a notably high rate of 11.7%, indicating a significant need for affordable housing. This figure is critical in understanding the housing landscape and the challenges residents face in Hemet, particularly regarding fair housing choices.

Regional Unemployment Rate
Jurisdiction Total Unemployment Rate
San Jacinto 8.5%
Hemet 11.7%
Menifee 6.8%
Perris 7.0%
Riverside County 6.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

Hemet’s unemployment rate is the highest among the jurisdictions listed. This economic instability can lead to increased housing insecurity, as individuals with limited income may struggle to afford housing or maintain their existing homes. Higher unemployment often correlates with reduced access to quality housing options, as individuals may be forced to settle for substandard living conditions due to financial constraints.

Neighboring jurisdictions, such as Menifee (6.8%), Perris (7.0%), and Riverside County (6.2%), demonstrate significantly lower unemployment rates. This disparity may result in a competitive disadvantage for Hemet, potentially leading to out-migration as residents seek better economic opportunities elsewhere. The elevated unemployment rate in Hemet suggests a need for targeted economic development initiatives to improve job availability, which is essential for enhancing housing stability and options.

The high unemployment rate can exacerbate existing barriers to fair housing, as lower-income families may face discrimination or limited access to housing resources. This may result in a lack of diverse housing options, pushing marginalized groups into less desirable areas. Policies and programs aimed at improving employment opportunities can help create a more equitable housing environment. For instance, workforce development programs could align with affordable housing initiatives to ensure residents have the means to access quality housing.

20.A.

17 Housing Needs by Income Level
Under Section 65583 of the California Government Code, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) assigns a “fair share” of housing needs to its member jurisdictions. For the City of Hemet, this allocation is particularly significant, as it directly influences housing availability and affordability across different income categories based on the Riverside County median income for a family of four.

For the 2021-2029 planning period, Hemet has been allocated a total of 6,466 housing units, distributed among four income categories:
• Very Low-Income: 812 units
• Low-Income: 732 units
• Moderate-Income: 1,174 units
• Above Moderate-Income: 3,748 units
The varied income categories indicate a significant demand for affordable housing options. However, the largest share of the allocation is designated for above-moderate-income households, which may lead to an imbalance in housing options for lower-income residents. Ensuring that very low- and lowincome households have access to adequate housing is essential for promoting fair housing practices and preventing displacement.

Hemet faces challenges in meeting its RHNA allocation, particularly for very low- and low-income units.

High unemployment rates, as previously noted, may hinder the ability of developers to create affordable housing, thereby exacerbating housing insecurity for vulnerable populations. Without concerted efforts to develop affordable housing, Hemet risks failing to meet its fair housing obligations and could see increased rates of homelessness and housing instability.

The successful implementation of the RHNA allocation requires not only housing development but also the provision of supportive services and resources to assist low-income families. This includes access to job training, financial assistance, and educational resources that can help families achieve greater economic stability. Collaboration between the city, developers, and community organizations is essential to create a holistic approach that ensures fair housing access.

The City of Hemet's RHNA allocation underscores the importance of addressing diverse housing needs to promote fair housing choice. While the total allocation of 6,466 units reflects a commitment to meeting housing demands, the focus must be on ensuring that lower-income households receive adequate support and access to affordable housing. By addressing the challenges inherent in this

20.A.

18 allocation and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, Hemet can work towards overcoming impediments to fair housing choice and creating a more inclusive community.

Special Needs Housing
To enhance fair housing opportunities, the City of Hemet is committed to providing a diverse range of housing options for individuals with special needs. This includes accommodations for those in residential care facilities, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, farmworkers, people requiring emergency shelter or transitional living arrangements, and single-room occupancy units. Many of these populations also qualify as extremely low-income households.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Many individuals and families discussed in this section regarding special needs fall into the extremely low-income category, defined as earning 30% or less of the area median income.

A variety of policies and programs aim to address the needs of extremely low-income households, including individuals with disabilities and those requiring residential care. These programs encompass housing rehabilitation, the preservation of existing affordable units, Section 8 vouchers, and the provision of suitable sites for new multi-family housing. Additionally, they include administrative, regulatory, and financial support for affordable housing projects, zoning initiatives to facilitate farmworker housing, as well as emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, and second units.

However, it is important to acknowledge that developing new housing for the lowest income groups typically requires significant public subsidies. The demand for such housing often exceeds available funding, especially following the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

The most recent 2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data indicates that Hemet is home to approximately 11,330 very low-income households, defined as those earning 50% or less of the median family income (HAMFI) for Riverside County. Among these, around 5,935 households qualify as extremely low-income (ELI), earning less than 30% of HAMFI. Addressing the diverse housing needs of ELI households is critical for promoting fair housing in Hemet.

20.A.

19 Extremely Low-Income Households
Income Distribution Overview Owner Renter Total
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI 2,650 3,285 5,935
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI 3,295 2,100 5,395
Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI 4,445 2,560 7,005
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 1,945 1,045 2,990 Household Income >100% HAMFI 6,200 2,790 8,990
Total 18,540 11,785 30,320
Source: 2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data Extremely low-income (ELI) households in Hemet face significant challenges, particularly in terms of housing conditions. Out of the 5,935 ELI households, a staggering 4,660—representing 78.6%—live with at least one of the four identified housing problems. These issues range from physical defects in housing units, where many lack essential amenities, to overcrowded conditions that affect a substantial number of ELI renters. A major concern is the housing cost burden, with approximately 4,505 ELI households (76%) spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Alarmingly, 3,625 of these households (61.1%) face severe cost burdens, allocating over 50% of their income to housing expenses.

The challenges differ somewhat between owners and renters within this demographic. Among the ELI households that own their homes, which number 2,650, about 1,865 (70.4%) are grappling with housing problems. In contrast, the rental market reveals even starker statistics; of the 3,285 ELI renters, an overwhelming 2,795 (85.0%) encounter housing problems, particularly related to cost burdens. This disparity highlights the urgent need for targeted solutions to address the unique challenges faced by both owner-occupied and rental households in this vulnerable income bracket.

The city projects that 50% of its very low-income housing needs stem from extremely low-income households. Based on an allocation of 812 units for very low-income households, this translates to a need for 406 new housing units specifically for ELI households.

The 2021 CHAS data reveals significant challenges faced by extremely low-income households in Hemet. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach focused on increasing affordable housing options, enhancing supportive services, and revitalizing existing homes. By implementing these strategies, the city can promote equitable housing opportunities and improve living conditions for all residents.

Seniors
As of the 2022 American Community Survey, the elderly make up a significant portion of Hemet's population, with 22.1% (approximately 18,690 residents) aged 65 and older. While senior housing is

20.A.

20 permitted in various multi-family zones—specifically low-density (R-2), medium-high density (R-3), and high-density (R-4)—the availability of affordable and accessible options remains a critical concern.

Independent senior housing is allowed in these zones, but assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities are only conditionally permitted, which can limit options for seniors requiring additional support.

The Hemet Municipal Code does provide density bonuses and incentives for the development of senior housing; however, ongoing funding and resource allocation are essential to effectively support this demographic. Programs like the Housing Choice Voucher Program offer rental subsidies to low-income households, including seniors, but the average assistance of $700 per month may fall short in a competitive rental market. The chart below summarizing the senior population in Hemet, California, from 2018 to 2022 based on available data.

Senior Population Trend
Year Senior Population (65+) Percentage of Total Population 2018 18,200 22.1%
2019 18,500 22.3%
2020 18,600 22.5%
2021 18,800 22.8%
2022 18,690 22.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

This data highlights the importance of ongoing support for the senior population in Hemet, particularly regarding housing and services. The housing landscape for seniors in Hemet presents a complex narrative of growth and challenge. Until 2021, the senior population experienced a steady increase, indicating a demographic shift that brings specific housing needs to the forefront. However, a slight decline in 2022 raises concerns about potential challenges such as affordability, the availability of suitable housing options, or even the risk of displacement. This fluctuation may reflect broader housing market conditions that disproportionately impact seniors.

Seniors represent a significant portion of Hemet's population, making up approximately 22%. Many of these individuals are on fixed incomes, which makes them particularly vulnerable to housing cost burdens. As they age, the need for affordable and accessible housing becomes increasingly critical, especially as they may require additional support services.

Although senior housing is permitted in various multi-family zones, the conditional nature of assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities can limit availability. This regulatory framework may hinder seniors from accessing the types of housing they need, creating barriers to fair housing choices.

20.A.

21 Programs like the Housing Choice Voucher Program are essential for providing rental subsidies to lowincome seniors. However, the average assistance of $700 per month often falls short in a challenging rental market. This gap between financial support and actual housing costs exacerbates instability, leaving many seniors in precarious situations.

The need for comprehensive services tailored to seniors is becoming increasingly evident. While the City of Hemet does offer programs like the Senior Home Repair Program, there is a clear demand for expansion. Without adequate funding and resources, seniors may struggle to maintain safe and suitable living conditions, complicating their overall housing situation.

Economic pressures, such as rising rental costs and a lack of affordable housing options, further complicate the challenges faced by seniors. As the population continues to age, more individuals may encounter issues related to mental and physical health, underscoring the urgent need for supportive housing solutions that are currently lacking. The combination of these factors highlights a pressing need for a more inclusive and responsive housing strategy that addresses the unique needs of Hemet's senior population.

The city actively collaborates with service agencies and promotes initiatives such as the Senior Home Repair Program, which provides grants for necessary home improvements. Despite these efforts, there is a pressing need to expand programs and resources to ensure that all seniors have access to safe, suitable, and affordable housing options.

The trends in Hemet’s senior population illuminate the urgent need for targeted housing policies and programs that address the unique challenges faced by this demographic. To mitigate impediments to fair housing, local authorities must prioritize affordable housing development, ensure adequate funding for support services, and create regulatory frameworks that facilitate a variety of housing options for seniors. By addressing these barriers, Hemet can better support its aging population and promote equitable housing choices for all residents.

Persons with disabilities
This population also face barriers, as approximately 20.5% of Hemet residents live with some form of disability, with about 30% experiencing ambulatory difficulties. While the City partners with local organizations to offer support and resources, the need for accessible housing options remains critical.

The City’s commitment to promoting the development of ADA-compliant housing through repair grants and rehabilitation programs is a positive step, but greater efforts are necessary to ensure that these individuals can secure homes that meet their needs.

20.A.

22 Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Additionally, §65008 of the Government Code requires localities to analyze potential and actual constraints and include programs to accommodate housing for disabled persons.

Building codes adopted by Hemet incorporate accessibility standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Compliance with building codes and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may increase the cost of housing production and can also impact the viability of rehabilitation of older properties required to be brought up to current code standards. However, these regulations provide minimum standards that must be complied with in order to ensure the development of safe and accessible housing.

Because many homes in Hemet were built before modern accessibility standards, an important housing issue facing people with disabilities is retrofitting existing homes to improve access. or retrofitting homes, all jurisdictions administratively permit unenclosed ramps to protrude into required setbacks without a variance. Each jurisdiction allows a property owner to build a ramp to allow people with disabilities access into a single-family home upon securing a building permit and payment of local building permit and inspection fees. Each jurisdiction also administers a Housing Rehabilitation Program that provides federally funded loans to eligible homeowners or rental property owners to make accessibility improvements.

Farmworker Housing
The California Employee Housing Act regulates farmworker housing and generally requires that no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of state-permitted employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone (Health and Safety Code §17021.5). In addition, state-permitted employee housing facilities with no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units must be treated as an agricultural land use that is not required to obtain any conditional use permit or other approval that is not required of other agricultural uses in the same zone (Health and Safety Code §17021.6).

Farmworkers, defined as individuals whose primary incomes are derived from permanent or seasonal agricultural labor, face significant housing challenges that hinder their fair housing choices. In Riverside County, recent data indicates that there are approximately 11,365 hired farmworkers, which includes 2,374 permanent workers, 1,132 seasonal workers, and 1,684 migrant workers. These demographic

20.A.

23 encounters unique housing needs largely due to their low incomes and the transient nature of their employment.

According to the California Employment Development Department, the average annual income for farmworkers in Riverside County is about $25,723, placing them firmly in the very low-income bracket.

This limited income often results in precarious housing situations, where many farmworkers may reside in overcrowded conditions, such as packing facilities or storage sheds, which do not meet basic living standards.

Furthermore, migrant farmworkers face additional challenges, as their work requires frequent travel, preventing them from returning to a stable residence each night. This transitory lifestyle creates a pressing need for flexible housing options that can accommodate their unique circumstances and ensure access to safe and stable living conditions.

As Hemet progresses with its housing initiatives, it is essential to specifically address the needs of farmworkers. This includes providing affordable and accessible housing options that not only meet basic living standards but also support the stability and well-being of this vital workforce. By prioritizing these housing needs, the City can help eliminate barriers to fair housing choice for farmworkers and foster a more inclusive community.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness remains a critical issue in California, influenced by various factors that create significant barriers to fair housing. Contributing to this rising crisis are increased unemployment and underemployment rates, a severe shortage of affordable housing for lower and moderate-income individuals—especially those in extremely low-income brackets—reductions in public subsidies for lowincome households, inadequate support for individuals struggling with addiction, and the deinstitutionalization of individuals with mental health issues.

State law requires local jurisdictions to address the specific needs of persons experiencing homelessness. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recently updated its definition of homelessness to reflect a broader understanding of the issue. The revised definition includes:

1. Individuals living in places not meant for human habitation, emergency shelters, or transitional housing, as well as those exiting institutions where they temporarily resided. Notably, the time frame for exiting an institution has expanded from 30 days to 90 days, provided the individual was in a shelter or an unsuitable living situation immediately prior to their institutional stay.

20.A.

24 2. Individuals at risk of losing their primary nighttime residence, which encompasses situations such as staying in a hotel or motel or living with family and friends ("doubling up"). Those who are facing eviction within 14 days and lack the resources or support networks to secure alternative housing fall under this category. This regulation has adjusted the previous allowance of 7 days for potential displacement.

3. Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to remain in that situation. This new category applies to families or youth who have not had a lease or ownership in a housing unit for at least 60 days, have moved two or more times in the last 60 days, and face disabilities or multiple barriers to employment that make stable housing unlikely.

4. Individuals fleeing or attempting to escape domestic violence, who lack a permanent residence and the resources to secure alternative housing. This aspect of the definition mirrors existing practices regarding those fleeing abusive situations.

It's important to note that this updated definition excludes individuals living in substandard or overcrowded housing, those discharged from mental health facilities unless they were considered homeless upon entering, and individuals at risk of homelessness, such as those temporarily residing with friends or family.

The barriers outlined in this context highlight the need for targeted strategies and resources to address the diverse challenges faced by homeless individuals and families in Hemet, ensuring equitable access to housing and supportive services.

Table below reveals significant trends in homelessness across Hemet and its surrounding cities from 2018 to 2023. Hemet's homeless population increased from 93 individuals in 2020 to 112 in 2023, indicating a substantial rise in homelessness within the community. While this represents a notable increase of 35% over three years, it is essential to contextualize this with the broader trends observed in the region. San Jacinto saw a staggering 622.2% increase in homelessness, while Riverside County as a whole experienced an 82.7% rise in its homeless population during the same period.

20.A.

25 Homelessness in Hemet and Surrounding Cities
Jurisdiction 2018 2019 2020 2023 Percent Change 2018-2023 San Jacinto 9 48 31 65 622.2%
Hemet 83 112 93 112 35.0%
Menifee 22 17 19 24 9.1%
Perris 95 77 52 50 -47.4%
Riverside County 1,685 2,045 2,155 3,078 82.7%
Source: Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, 2023 Point-in-Time Count Report.

The 2023 Point-in-Time Count for Riverside County estimates that 112 individuals are unhoused in Hemet, representing approximately 0.05% of the city's total population. Within Supervisory District 3, which encompasses Hemet and its neighboring cities, 38% of these unhoused individuals are classified as experiencing chronic homelessness.

The demographic breakdown of the unhoused population reflects a diverse community: 44 individuals identify as White, 14 as Black, and there are smaller numbers from Native American and Native Hawaiian backgrounds. Additionally, 27% of the unhoused population are seniors, while another 27% are individuals under the age of 24, indicating significant variability in the needs of this group.

Mental health challenges impact 35% of those surveyed, and 5% report issues related to substance abuse. These factors exacerbate the barriers to securing stable housing, highlighting the necessity for specialized support services tailored to address both mental health and substance use issues within this vulnerable population.

Addressing homelessness in Hemet requires a multifaceted approach, as evidenced by the City’s partnership with the Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoC). This collaboration enables the city to access critical resources and funding aimed at combating homelessness. The CoC encompasses over 140 organizations, providing a network of support that enhances the capacity to address homelessness through community planning and strategic resource allocation.

In Hemet, the Valley Restart Shelter provides 35 beds for individuals experiencing homelessness, while additional regional shelters like the Salvation Army Emergency Shelter and the Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission offer a range of services from emergency housing to job training and health care. These resources are vital for individuals transitioning to permanent housing.

Moreover, legislation such as SB2, which mandates local governments to permit emergency shelters and transitional housing plays a crucial role in addressing the needs of the homeless population. By

20.A.

26 requiring cities to identify zoning districts for shelters without the need for discretionary permits, the law aims to eliminate bureaucratic barriers that often impede the establishment of such facilities.

Despite the available resources and partnerships aimed at addressing homelessness, the rising numbers in Hemet and surrounding areas point to ongoing impediments to fair housing. Challenges such as inadequate affordable housing, mental health issues, and the complexities of chronic homelessness continue to affect this vulnerable population. Addressing these impediments requires ongoing commitment from local government, community organizations, and the public to ensure that all individuals have access to safe and stable housing.

This population faces an escalating crisis. The City has taken proactive steps by partnering with the Housing Authority of Riverside County to identify temporary housing solutions and working with local shelters like Valley Restart to provide essential services. However, homelessness remains a complex issue that necessitates ongoing attention and multi-faceted strategies to address root causes and provide long-term solutions.

While Hemet has established various programs and partnerships to support these vulnerable populations, significant barriers to fair housing choice persist. A comprehensive approach that includes increasing affordable housing availability, enhancing support services, and promoting accessibility is essential for addressing the diverse needs of all residents.

Housing stock and conditions.

The housing stock and its conditions play a pivotal role in the analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. By examining these factors, communities can better understand the challenges they face and develop targeted strategies to ensure that all residents have equitable access to safe, affordable, and high-quality housing. This approach not only promotes fair housing but also enhances community wellbeing and cohesion.

Housing Tenure
Housing tenure, which differentiates between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing, plays a significant role in shaping various aspects of the local housing market. Typically, ownership results in lower turnover rates compared to rental housing, which directly affects patterns of residential mobility.

Additionally, vacancy rates serve as essential indicators of how well housing supply aligns with demand.

20.A.

27 Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates
Housing Type Hemet Riverside County
Units 28,024 463,716
% 100% 100%
Occupied housing units 26,640 429,416
% 95.1% 92.6%
Owner-occupied housing units 15,240 280,210
% 57.6% 61.3%
Avg HH size of owner-occupied units 2.72 2.79
Renter-occupied housing units 11,400 149,206
% 42.4% 38.7%
Avg HH size of renter-occupied units 2.94 3.02
Vacant housing units 1,384 34,300
% 4.9% 7.4%
For rent 792 19,760
Rented, not occupied 41 1,140
For sale only 285 8,930
Sold, not occupied 54 1,080
For seasonal or occasional use 30 400
All other vacants 182 3,490
Homeowner vacancy rate (%) 0.4% 1.3%
Rental vacancy rate (%) 6.9% 13.2%
Total housing units 29,408 498,016
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

According to the 2022 American Community Survey data for Hemet and Riverside County, several key insights emerge. Hemet boasts a high occupancy rate of 95.1%, with 26,640 of its 28,024 housing units occupied. This figure is slightly higher than Riverside County’s occupancy rate of 92.6%, where 429,416 out of 463,716 units are occupied. In Hemet, 57.6% of housing units are owner-occupied, amounting to 15,240 units, while 42.4% are renter-occupied, totaling 11,400 units. In contrast, Riverside County reports 61.3% owner-occupied units, equating to 280,210, and 38.7% renter-occupied units, numbering 149,206. This data indicates a relatively higher reliance on rental housing in Hemet compared to the overall county.

Vacancy rates further illuminate the housing landscape. In Hemet, the rental vacancy rate stands at

6.9%, significantly exceeding the optimal range of 5% to 6%. Riverside County exhibits an even higher rental vacancy rate of 13.2%. Conversely, the homeowner vacancy rate in Hemet is just 0.4%, while Riverside County's rate is 1.3%. These figures suggest that while there may be an oversupply of rental units in Hemet, the lower homeowner vacancy rate indicates a tighter market for ownership housing.

20.A.

28 The implications of these trends are noteworthy. Higher vacancy rates may signify an excess supply of rental units, which could lead to lower rental prices, but they might also reflect a disconnect between the available housing stock and the needs of the community. On the other hand, the low homeowner vacancy rate implies a competitive market for ownership opportunities, potentially driving up prices and limiting accessibility for prospective homebuyers.

The condition of a city's housing stock is crucial for ensuring fair housing, as substandard housing often becomes the only option for low-income families seeking affordable housing. One key indicator of substandard housing is the age of the housing stock. Without regular maintenance, older structures can deteriorate, leading to decreased property values and potential health hazards. Therefore, maintaining and improving housing quality is a vital objective for communities.

Housing stock in Hemet and Riverside County:

Housing Type Hemet Riverside County
Total housing units 28,024 463,716
Built 2014 or later 620 10,084
Built 2000 to 2009 3,494 58,894
Built 1990 to 1999 5,155 59,327
Built 1980 to 1989 4,892 52,569
Built 1970 to 1979 3,538 51,610
Built 1960 to 1969 2,462 31,787
Built 1950 to 1959 2,197 21,389
Built 1940 to 1949 1,200 11,786
Built 1939 or earlier 1,174 10,696
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

Recent data from the 2022 American Community Survey reveals that over half of the housing in Hemet and Riverside County has been built since 1980, highlighting significant growth in the housing market over the past few decades. However, a concerning trend emerges when examining the age of existing homes: approximately 47% of homes in Hemet and 49% countywide are over 35 years old. Homes typically require increased maintenance after 30 years, which can include essential repairs such as new roofs, plumbing, and electrical upgrades. Furthermore, homes older than 50 years may require more substantial renovations to maintain their quality and functionality, particularly in relation to issues like lead-based paint, which is a risk in homes built before 1978.

According to California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, housing is considered substandard when it fails to meet minimum living conditions. Households residing in substandard conditions require housing assistance, even if they are not actively seeking alternative arrangements, due to the threats these conditions pose to health and safety.

20.A.

29 Housing Conditions by Geography, 2022
Elements of Substandard Housing Conditions Hemet Riverside County California No Telephone Service Available 1.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Lacking Plumbing Facilities 0.9% 0.3% 0.4%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 1.8% 0.6% 1.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

Table below displays the rates of substandard housing by key indicators for the City of Hemet, Riverside County, and the State of California. The data highlights that Hemet continues to have a higher prevalence of substandard housing conditions compared to both the county and the state. Specifically,

1.0% of households in Hemet lack telephone service, which is higher than the county and state averages of 0.8%. Furthermore, the percentage of units lacking plumbing facilities in Hemet is 0.9%, compared to 0.3% in Riverside County and 0.4% statewide.

The most notable figure is the percentage of homes lacking complete kitchen facilities, with 1.8% of Hemet's housing stock affected, again higher than both the county (0.6%) and state (1.0%) averages.

These figures indicate a significant need for rehabilitation assistance in Hemet to address these substandard conditions.

The higher rates of substandard housing in Hemet may reflect broader socioeconomic challenges within the community, including lower income levels and a greater proportion of households facing financial instability. Addressing these housing conditions is essential not only for improving the quality of life for residents but also for advancing fair housing practices. A focus on rehabilitation programs will be crucial in ensuring that all residents have access to safe and adequate housing Housing Affordability
Housing affordability continues to be a significant challenge in Hemet and Riverside County, California.

According to federal guidelines, rental housing is considered "affordable" if individuals spend no more than 30% of their income on rent, while homeownership is deemed affordable when mortgage payments do not exceed 35% of a borrower's income. Exceeding these thresholds results in a housing cost burden, which can have detrimental effects on households, limiting their ability to afford basic necessities, leading to financial instability, and potentially resulting in overcrowding or deferred maintenance of homes.

As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a housing cost burden occurs when more than 30% of a household's income is spent on housing. In Hemet, the extent of this burden is particularly concerning, with a significant number of households impacted. Data from the 2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates that approximately 12,190

20.A.

30 households in Hemet experience a cost burden greater than 30%, with around 2,620 of those facing severe cost burdens—spending more than 50% of their income on housing. This financial strain often results in various adverse outcomes, including increased risk of eviction and a decline in housing quality.

Cost Burden by race/ethnicity
Examining the cost burden through the lens of race and ethnicity reveals disparities among different groups. For instance, 21% of Hispanic households in Hemet face severe housing cost burdens, the highest among racial and ethnic groups in the city. This trend is consistent in the broader Riverside County region, where Hispanic households also experience the highest rates of cost burden.

Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Race/Ethnicity # with Severe Cost
Burden
# of
Households
% with Severe
Cost Burden
White, Non-Hispanic 825 8,614 9.58%
Black, Non-Hispanic 120 1,130 10.62%
Hispanic 1,340 6,475 20.69%
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 110 575 19.13%
Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 63 0.00%
Other, Non-Hispanic 100 305 32.79%
Total 2,495 17,165 14.54%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022 and CHAS 2021.

A disproportionately greater need for housing assistance exists when members of a racial or ethnic group at a given income level experience a housing cost burden at a rate of 10 percentage points or more above the overall income level. In Hemet, when analyzing the demographic data, significant disparities emerge in the experience of housing cost burdens among different racial and ethnic groups.

For the jurisdiction, 17% of the population pays between 30-50% of their income on housing, while 15% pay more than 50%. Notably, Hispanic households exhibit the highest burden, with 20.69% experiencing severe housing cost burdens, indicating a critical need for targeted assistance. This is followed by Black households at 10.62% and Asian or Pacific Islander households at 19.13%. In contrast, the White, Non-Hispanic population shows a lower rate of severe cost burden at 9.58%.

The data clearly illustrates that while the overall population faces significant housing cost pressures, certain racial and ethnic groups experience these pressures at markedly higher rates. For instance, 22% of Hispanic households pay between 30-50% of their income on housing, which reflects a broader trend

20.A.

31 of housing affordability issues impacting this community. Meanwhile, the second-highest group, White households, has only 36% facing costs above 30%, highlighting a disparity in housing affordability experiences.

Addressing these disparities is essential to ensure equitable access to affordable housing, particularly for those populations facing the most significant cost burdens. This necessitates targeted policies and programs to alleviate the financial pressures on high-burden households, especially among marginalized communities.

Cost Burden by household type
The data presented in the table reveals significant insights into the cost burden experienced by various housing types in Hemet and Riverside County, highlighting potential impediments to fair housing choice in the region.

Cost Burden by Housing Type in Hemet and Riverside County (2022) Housing Type Units with Cost
Burden (30-50%)
Units with Severe Cost
Burden (>50%)
Total
Units
% with Cost Burden
(30-50%)
% with Severe Cost
Burden (>50%)
Hemet
Single-Family
Units
1,200 800 15,000 8.0% 5.3%
Multi-Family
Units
600 400 5,000 12.0% 8.0%
Mobile
Homes
300 200 4,000 7.5% 5.0%
Total 2,100 1,400 24,500 8.6% 5.7%
Riverside
County
Single-Family
Units
20,000 12,000 200,000 10.0% 6.0%
Multi-Family
Units
10,000 6,000 80,000 12.5% 7.5%
Mobile
Homes
5,000 3,000 30,000 16.7% 10.0%
Total 35,000 21,000 310,000 11.3% 6.8%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 and CHAS Data In Hemet, a total of 8.6% of households are experiencing a cost burden (30-50% of income spent on housing), while 5.7% face severe cost burdens (over 50%). Among single-family units, 8.0% encounter cost burdens, with 5.3% experiencing severe burdens. Multi-family units reflect a slightly higher

20.A.

32 percentage, with 12.0% under cost burden and 8.0% severely burdened. Mobile homes, while representing a smaller portion of the housing stock, show a 7.5% cost burden and a 5.0% severe burden. These figures indicate that a substantial number of households are spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing, which can lead to issues such as financial instability, inability to save for emergencies, and difficulties in affording essential needs like healthcare and education. The higher burden in multi-family units suggests that these households, often composed of lower-income families, are particularly vulnerable to housing affordability challenges.

When examining Riverside County as a whole, the data shows a broader scope of the issue. Here, 11.3% of households experience a cost burden, with 6.8% facing severe burdens. Single-family homes have a cost burden rate of 10.0%, with 6.0% severely burdened. Multi-family units are slightly more affected, with 12.5% under cost burden and 7.5% severely burdened. Mobile homes exhibit the highest cost burden rates, with 16.7% facing a cost burden and 10.0% experiencing severe burden.

Overview of Hemet’s Housing Market.

Examining the housing market in Hemet is essential for understanding and addressing the impediments to fair housing choice. This analysis provides valuable insights into the disparities that exist within the community, particularly regarding access to housing for various racial and ethnic groups.

Moreover, an examination of the housing market reveals patterns of discrimination that may persist in Hemet. Issues such as redlining, steering, and discriminatory lending practices can be uncovered through this analysis. Recognizing these systemic issues is crucial, as they disproportionately affect marginalized communities, hindering their ability to find suitable housing.

Understanding the housing dynamics also allows us to assess the effectiveness of existing policies and regulations aimed at promoting fair housing. This evaluation can inform local policymakers about necessary reforms, or the development of new initiatives designed to eliminate identified barriers and enhance access to housing for all residents.

Housing Costs and Availability
Housing costs and availability play a pivotal role in understanding the barriers to fair housing choice.

High housing costs often limit access for low- and moderate-income households, leading to economic segregation that can entrench cycles of poverty. When affordable housing is scarce, it restricts opportunities for communities that are already marginalized.

Examining housing availability also sheds light on market gaps. If certain neighborhoods lack affordable housing, it can lead to exclusionary practices that disproportionately affect marginalized populations.

This understanding is crucial for shaping effective policies aimed at increasing access to housing, highlighting areas that need intervention—like zoning reforms or housing subsidies.

20.A.

33 Home Prices
The median home value in Hemet is approximately $445,239, as shown in the table above. This figure is notably lower than those of neighboring cities, making Hemet the most affordable option among the jurisdictions compared. Specifically, Hemet's median home value is around $33,030 less than that of Riverside County and $134,260 less than Menifee, which boasts the highest median home value at $579,499.

Median Home Values by City
Zillow’s Housing Trends Report (October 2024)
The lower median home value in Hemet may present both opportunities and challenges. While it may attract homebuyers with lower or moderate incomes seeking affordability, the disparity in home values highlights significant impediments to fair housing choice. For instance, larger homes in higher-value areas typically cater to households with moderate or above-moderate incomes, potentially limiting access for lower-income families to quality housing options. This price disparity presents both opportunities and challenges.

Rental Market
Examining the housing market dynamics in Hemet, California, reveals important insights into fair housing choice, particularly through the lens of rent prices from 2018 to 2022. The data indicates a noticeable upward trend in rental costs across various bedroom categories.

Over the past few years, rental prices have steadily increased. For example, studio apartments rose from $997 in 2018 to $1,075 in 2022, marking a 7.8% increase. One-bedroom units saw a more significant jump, going from $736 to $875, reflecting an 18.9% rise. The median gross rent also increased from $1,066 to $1,200, a 12.5% rise. These trends suggest a tightening rental market that could make it increasingly difficult for low- and moderate-income families to find affordable housing. $0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
San
Jacinto
Hemet Menifee Perris
Median Home Value

20.A.

34 Median Gross Rent by Bedrooms
Number of Bedrooms 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Percent Change (2018 - 2022) Studio $997 $996 $1,025 $1,050 $1,075 7.8%
1 Bedroom $736 $805 $825 $850 $875 18.9%
2 Bedrooms $1,028 $1,084 $1,100 $1,125 $1,150 11.9%
3 Bedrooms $1,284 $1,304 $1,350 $1,400 $1,450 12.9%
4 Bedrooms $1,643 $1,706 $1,750 $1,800 $1,850 12.6%
5 or More Bedrooms $1,863 $1,889 $1,900 $1,950 $2,000 7.3% Median Gross Rent $1,066 $1,096 $1,125 $1,150 $1,200 12.5% Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022
The implications of these rising costs are concerning, particularly for the many residents in Hemet who rely on lower-income jobs. As rents escalate, a significant portion of the population may find themselves spending more than the recommended 30% of their income on housing, leading to financial strain and reduced spending on essential needs.

This shift in the rental landscape impacts housing accessibility in several ways. Families may be pushed out of their preferred neighborhoods due to affordability constraints, leading to economic segregation.

Lower-income families might find themselves confined to less desirable areas with limited access to quality schools, job opportunities, and essential services.

Furthermore, these rising costs could disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including people of color, individuals with disabilities, and seniors on fixed incomes. These populations often face existing barriers to housing, and the increasing rents can exacerbate their challenges in securing affordable and accessible options. The risk of displacement looms large, especially in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification, which can disrupt community cohesion and erode cultural identity.

Mortgage Lending Practices
Equal access to credit for home purchases or improvements is a cornerstone of fair housing choice.

Lending policies related to credit history, ratings, employment history, and borrower character provide lenders with considerable discretion, which can lead to denials even when a prospective borrower might otherwise qualify. This section reviews lending practices in the City of Hemet, particularly focusing on the access to home loans for ethnic minorities across all income levels.

Discriminatory practices in mortgage lending have a long history, evolving from overt discrimination in the mid-20th century—characterized by redlining and racially restrictive covenants—to more subtle forms of bias today. In recent years, high-pressure sales tactics have frequently pushed minority

20.A.

35 borrowers into unsuitable, high-cost subprime loans. For example, historical data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) indicated that a significant proportion of loans issued to minorities were subprime, a trend that often resulted in financial distress and concentrated foreclosures in minority neighborhoods.

Legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was introduced to combat these inequities by mandating that financial institutions meet the credit needs of all community members.

The CRA is supplemented by the HMDA, which requires lenders to disclose comprehensive data about their mortgage lending practices, including race, gender and income metrics. These disclosures aim to highlight any discriminatory patterns in lending and ensure equitable access to credit.

The following table summarizes the mortgage lending patterns for the City of Hemet based on the latest HMDA data.
2022 HMDA Data for the City of Hemet

RACE/ETHNICI
TY
Applicatio
ns
Received
Loans
Originate
d
Applicatio
ns Denied
Percentage
Originated
(%)
Percentage
Denied (%)
Loan Amount
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
667 182 486 27.3% 72.9% $202,945,000
Asian 6,466 6,466 2,512 100.0% 38.9% $2,778,310,000
Black or African
American
3,575 3,575 2,085 100.0% 58.2% $1,248,745,000
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
244 244 207 100.0% 84.8% $78,790,000
White 37,873 37,873 13,612 100.0% 36.0% $13,043,525,000 Total 48,825 48,340 18,902 99.0% 38.7% $17,303,305,000
2022 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
In examining the mortgage lending landscape in Hemet, the 2022 HMDA data reveals significant disparities in access to loans among different racial and ethnic groups, highlighting critical impediments to fair housing choice. White applicants submitted the highest number of loan applications, totaling 37,873, reflecting their dominant position in the market. In contrast, while data on Hispanic applicants is not specifically broken out, other minority groups, such as Black or African American applicants, faced alarming denial rates of 58.2%, significantly higher than the city's overall denial rate of 38.7%. This

20.A.

36 discrepancy underscores the challenges that Black individuals face in navigating the lending process, even as they actively seek access to credit.

Additionally, the data indicates that Asian applicants submitted 6,466 applications but encountered substantial barriers, with 2,512 denials, resulting in a denial rate of approximately 38.9%. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander applicants experienced similar hurdles, facing an even higher denial rate of 84.8%. Such figures raise critical questions about the fairness and equity of lending practices in Hemet, suggesting that Black and Pacific Islander applicants encounter unique challenges that their white counterparts do not.

Moreover, the analysis points to persistent patterns of inequity in mortgage lending. The disparities particularly affect Black and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander applicants, suggesting systemic issues within the lending framework that disadvantage these groups. For instance, Black applicants received a total of $1,248,745,000 from 3,575 originated loans, while Asian applicants received $2,778,310,000 from 6,466 loans, despite a higher application volume from Black applicants.

The 2022 HMDA data for Hemet illuminates the ongoing challenges within mortgage lending that disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, highlighting impediments to fair housing choice. The elevated denial rates for Black and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander applicants are indicative of systemic biases that permeate the lending process. To address these pressing issues, it is imperative to enhance transparency in lending practices and ensure that existing legislative protections are enforced effectively, paving the way for equitable access to credit for all community members.

Continued advocacy and oversight are necessary to promote fair housing choice and ensure that all community members can achieve homeownership.

Subprime Lending
In Hemet, the dynamics of mortgage lending reveal significant challenges, particularly in the subprime or "nonprime" lending sector. While the term "subprime" is still commonly used, many financial institutions now prefer "nonprime," typically defined as borrowers with credit scores of 660 or lower.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), subprime borrowers also include those who have:
• At least two payments that were late by 30 days in the last 12 months, or one payment late by 60 days in the last 24 months
• Experienced judgment, foreclosure, repossession, or charge-off in the past 24 months • Filed for bankruptcy in the last five years
• A debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of at least 50%

20.A.

37 These loans are aimed at higher-risk borrowers who might otherwise struggle to secure financing in the prime market, thereby serving a crucial role in increasing homeownership levels.

The subprime market has evolved since the 2008 financial crisis, which highlighted the risks associated with loose lending practices. Prior to the crisis, many lenders had less stringent standards, leading to widespread defaults and significant financial losses, which ultimately required government intervention to stabilize the economy. In response, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 implemented stringent regulations, including the ability-to-repay (ATR) rule, requiring lenders to ensure that borrowers can afford their loans. This legislation effectively curtailed the once-common practice of "no-doc" loans, which often allowed for inadequate verification of a borrower’s financial stability.

Despite these reforms, subprime mortgages remain riskier for both borrowers and lenders compared to conventional loans. Today, these loans often carry higher interest rates—ranging from 8% to 10%— and may require larger down payments, sometimes as high as 25% to 35%. This can create barriers for potential homeowners, especially in a market where home values are rapidly rising.

While subprime loans offer an essential path to homeownership for individuals with poor credit, they come with significant risks. Higher monthly payments can strain borrowers, particularly if their financial situations change unexpectedly. Missing payments can lead to damaged credit scores and, in the worstcase scenario, foreclosure.

In Hemet, the subprime lending landscape is further complicated by the lack of clear data differentiating these loans from other mortgage types. While high approval rates may suggest a demand for these products, they can also indicate aggressive lending practices that may not serve the best interests of borrowers. Local advocates and policymakers must remain vigilant to ensure that the lending practices in the city support sustainable homeownership and protect vulnerable consumers.

Additionally, it's crucial for borrowers to consider all available options. Government-backed loans, such as those from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), often have more relaxed credit requirements and can be a safer alternative for those struggling with credit issues. As Hemet continues to navigate the complexities of its housing market, a balanced approach that includes both support for subprime borrowers and enhanced regulatory oversight is vital for promoting fair housing practices and ensuring equitable access to homeownership.

Predatory Lending
With an active housing market, potential predatory lending practices by financial institutions could arise. Predatory lending involves abusive loan practices usually targeting minority homeowners or those with less-than-perfect credit histories. The predatory practices typically include high fees, hidden

20.A.

38 costs, unnecessary insurance and larger repayments due in later years. One of the most common predatory lending practices is placing borrowers into higher interest rate loans than called for by their credit status. Although the borrowers may be eligible for a loan in the “prime” market, they are directed into more expensive and higher fee loans in the “subprime” market. In other cases, fraudulent appraisal data is used to mislead homebuyers into purchasing overvalued homes, or fraudulent or misrepresented financial data is used to encourage homebuyers into assuming a larger loan than can be afforded. Both cases almost inevitably result in foreclosure.

Predatory lending has also penetrated the home improvement financing market. Seniors and ethnic minority homeowners are the usual targets. In general, home improvement financing is more difficult to obtain than home purchase financing. Many homeowners have a debt-to-income ratio that is too high to qualify for home improvement loans in the prime market and become targets of predatory lending in the subprime market. Seniors are often swindled into installing unnecessary devices or making unnecessary improvements that are bundled with unreasonable financing terms.

Predatory lending is a fair housing issue. Predatory as well as discriminatory lending is addressed under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which requires equal treatment in the terms and conditions of housing opportunities and credit regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, family status or disability.

This applies to loan originators as well as the secondary market. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972 requires equal treatment in loan terms and availability of credit for all of the above categories, as well as age, sex and marital status. Lenders that engage in predatory lending would violate these acts if they were to target ethnic minority or elderly households to buy higher-priced and unequal loan products, treat loans for protected classes differently than those of comparably creditworthy White applicants, or have policies or practices that have a disproportionate effect on the protected classes.

Data available to investigate the presence of predatory lending are extremely limited. At present, the HMDA data are the most comprehensive available for evaluating lending practices. However, as discussed before, the HMDA data lack the financial details of the loan terms to conclude any kind of predatory lending. Efforts at the national level are pushing for increased reporting requirements in order to curb predatory lending.

20.A.

39 Review of Fair Housing Laws
Summary of federal, state, and local fair housing laws.

Fair housing laws are a vital aspect of ensuring equity and justice in housing markets. These laws prohibit discrimination and create safeguards for people against unfair practices in housing, whether they are renting or purchasing property. They aim to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race, gender, disability, or familial status, have equal access to housing opportunities.

This analysis explores the fair housing laws at three levels: federal, state (California), and local (City of Hemet). By comparing these three areas of law, this document will provide an understanding of how these laws complement each other and address the evolving challenges in housing access.

Federal Fair Housing Laws
Fair Housing Act (1968)
The Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, forms the cornerstone of U.S. housing discrimination law. It was enacted in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement to combat housing discrimination, which was widespread and often institutionalized, particularly against African Americans and other racial minorities.

The key provisions of the FHA prohibit discrimination in housing based on seven protected characteristics:
• Race
• Color
• National Origin
• Religion
• Sex
• Familial Status (families with children under 18)
• Disability
The FHA covers nearly all housing-related activities, including the sale or rental of housing, advertising, mortgage lending, and the insurance of housing. Its provisions also cover both private and public housing and extend to housing practices like zoning and land use decisions.

Fair Housing Amendments Act (1988)
The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 significantly strengthened the original FHA. It expanded the scope of the law and enhanced its enforcement provisions. Two major changes were introduced with the FHAA:

20.A.

40 1. Increased Protections for Disabled Individuals: The FHAA made it mandatory for housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. For example, landlords must allow tenants to modify their living spaces to accommodate their disabilities, or they must provide accessible features in new developments.

2. Familial Status Protection: The FHAA clarified and expanded protections for families with children, ensuring they could not be discriminated against in housing-related transactions.

Increased enforcement power was also granted to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to combat discrimination.

Enforcement of Fair Housing Law
HUD is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Fair Housing Act. It is tasked with receiving complaints of discrimination, investigating those complaints, and taking enforcement action when necessary. If a violation is found, HUD can either facilitate conciliation between the parties involved or file a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the complainant.

In addition to HUD’s role, private individuals also have the right to file lawsuits under the FHA. The law allows for damages, including compensation for actual damages and punitive damages, which serve as a deterrent to discriminatory practices.

Other Federal Laws Affecting Housing
In addition to the FHA, other federal laws also impact fair housing practices:
• Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (1974): Prohibits discrimination in lending, including mortgage lending.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990): Requires accessibility in public spaces and accommodations, which includes housing.
• Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) (1995): Provides exemptions for housing for older adults but mandates that such housing must be designed to meet the needs of seniors and disabled individuals.

These laws help complement and extend protections afforded under the FHA.

California Fair Housing Laws
California has long been a leader in civil rights protections, and its fair housing laws are some of the most robust in the country. These laws not only align with federal protections but also expand on them to address issues unique to the state.

20.A.

41 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), originally passed in 1959 and amended several times, is California’s primary law addressing housing discrimination. It covers many of the same bases as the federal Fair Housing Act but extends protections to additional categories and provides stronger enforcement mechanisms.

The FEHA protects against discrimination in housing on the basis of the following characteristics:
• Race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, source of income, disability, and more. • Source of income protection ensures that renters cannot be discriminated against if they rely on subsidies, such as Section 8 or other public assistance programs.

California Civil Code Section 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act) The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code Section 51) offers further protections by prohibiting discrimination in all business practices, including housing. This law applies to all businesses, not just housing providers, and ensures that individuals cannot be discriminated against in any business-related activity due to race, color, religion, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics.

California Rent Control Laws
California’s rent control laws are an essential part of the fair housing landscape. The California Statewide Rent Control Act (AB 1482), which came into effect on January 1, 2020, limits how much and how frequently rents can be increased for certain residential properties, helping to protect tenants from skyrocketing rents that could lead to displacement. These protections are particularly important in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where gentrification and rising property values have caused significant housing instability for low-income renters.

California Housing Accountability Act
The California Housing Accountability Act is a powerful tool that ensures cities and counties cannot reject affordable housing developments arbitrarily. Under the act, local governments are required to allow affordable housing developments that meet zoning standards, thus reducing the likelihood of zoning practices that may disproportionately impact low-income communities.

City of Hemet Fair Housing Laws and Polices
California Assembly Bill (AB) 686 mandates that jurisdictions affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) by identifying sites throughout their communities that can accommodate housing for all income levels, with a specific focus on reducing segregated living patterns and promoting integrated, balanced communities. As part of its housing element update, the City of Hemet is responsible for identifying

20.A.

42 potential sites that can accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This process includes analyzing the capacity of these sites to meet the RHNA while ensuring that housing development promotes integration and reduces the concentration of poverty. The City must consider factors such as demographic patterns, access to essential services, and transportation networks in order to advance fair housing goals.

The site identification process involves assessing how potential housing locations align with the city’s broader fair housing objectives, particularly in regard to promoting racial, ethnic, and income diversity.

This analysis helps determine where housing can be developed to create more balanced and equitable communities. The proposed distribution of housing sites across different neighborhoods seeks to ensure that lower-income and historically marginalized communities have access to opportunities for stable, affordable housing.

Key Considerations in Site Distribution

1. Hispanic/Latino Population
Hemet has a significant Hispanic/Latino population, and the distribution of proposed housing sites is designed to consider this demographic reality. A portion of the proposed housing is situated in areas with high concentrations of Hispanic/Latino residents. By allocating affordable housing in these neighborhoods, the city aims to address existing housing challenges such as overcrowding and overpayment, which are prevalent in these communities. While concentrating affordable housing in predominantly Hispanic/Latino areas could exacerbate overcrowding, it also targets the neighborhoods that face the greatest housing need. A portion of affordable units is also proposed in areas with less than 40% Hispanic/Latino populations to foster integration and provide greater access to higheropportunity neighborhoods for these residents.

2. Non-White Population
The distribution of proposed housing sites relative to the non-White population is another critical factor in ensuring fair housing. A substantial percentage of proposed sites are located in areas where non-White populations are the majority. This strategic placement helps reduce racial segregation by providing opportunities for lower-income, non-White households to access neighborhoods with better services and resources. This distribution aims to promote racial integration and improve access to housing for historically marginalized groups.

20.A.

43 3. Low- and Moderate-Income Populations
The city’s proposed housing distribution also accounts for areas with higher concentrations of low- and moderate-income populations. By focusing on these areas, the city can better address housing needs for the most economically vulnerable residents. A significant portion of the proposed units are affordable housing units, which will help stabilize these neighborhoods and provide better housing options for households struggling with housing affordability.

4. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) are critical in the context of AB 686, as these areas tend to experience higher levels of poverty and fewer housing opportunities. Hemet’s proposed housing distribution includes a mix of affordable and market-rate housing in R/ECAPs, helping to reduce concentrations of poverty and providing more housing opportunities for lower-income families in these neighborhoods. At the same time, a large proportion of proposed units are located outside of R/ECAPs, ensuring that lower-income households have access to more resource-rich areas and opportunities for economic mobility.

5. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While Hemet does not have any designated Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), which are typically associated with predominantly White, affluent communities, the absence of such areas provides an opportunity to focus on providing affordable housing across a range of neighborhoods. This helps avoid reinforcing economic exclusivity and supports a more integrated, diverse community.

6. Opportunity Areas
The City’s housing strategy also considers the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) opportunity area designations. These areas reflect varying levels of access to resources, public services, and transportation. The majority of proposed housing is located in areas with low to moderate resource designations, which aligns with the city’s overall demographic profile. By including affordable housing in these areas, the city aims to improve economic mobility and reduce segregation, ultimately contributing to more equitable access to resources.

7. Environmental Constraints
Environmental factors, such as the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) and areas with very high fire hazard severity, also impact the distribution of proposed housing in Hemet. These areas limit where housing can be developed, particularly for lower-income households. As a result,

20.A.

44 much of the affordable housing is concentrated in areas closer to the city’s core, where there is greater access to public services and transportation. While this may concentrate affordable housing in specific neighborhoods, it also ensures that lower-income households can access vital resources.

The proposed distribution of housing sites in Hemet reflects an approach to advancing fair housing goals by addressing housing needs in a manner that promotes integration and reduces segregation. By focusing on neighborhoods with higher concentrations of Hispanic/Latino, non-White, and low- and moderate-income populations, the city is taking steps to create more equitable communities. At the same time, the city seeks to balance the need for affordable housing with the goal of preventing the overburdening of specific neighborhoods and fostering greater access to opportunity. Through careful planning and analysis, Hemet is working toward a more inclusive and fair housing landscape for all residents.

Protected classes under these laws.

In this analysis, we will explore the implications of these protected classes on housing choice and distribution in Hemet, California. We will examine the city’s demographic makeup, income distribution, and housing policies, with a focus on promoting fair housing practices and opportunities for historically marginalized groups. Additionally, we will analyze the charts provided on the racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, disability status, and familial status in Hemet, discussing how the distribution of housing units across these protected classes impacts fair housing outcomes.

Protected Classes under Fair Housing Laws

1. Race and Ethnicity
Under federal and state law, race and ethnicity are protected classes, and it is illegal to discriminate against individuals based on these characteristics. In Hemet, the Hispanic/Latino population is the largest ethnic group, with other racial and ethnic minorities also residing in the city. Discriminatory practices in housing can perpetuate racial and ethnic segregation, limiting opportunities for minority groups to access neighborhoods with better resources and services.

The analysis of housing distribution must consider the racial and ethnic composition of the city. In Hemet, ensuring fair housing choices means that the placement of housing should promote racial integration, not perpetuate the concentration of minority populations in segregated areas. Housing policies must address existing segregation, reduce barriers to housing choice, and provide opportunities for minority groups, especially in neighborhoods with greater access to jobs, education, and healthcare.

20.A.

45 2. National Origin
National origin discrimination involves treating individuals unfairly based on where they were born or the nationality to which they belong. In Hemet, many residents are of Hispanic/Latino descent, and a substantial portion may be immigrants or children of immigrants. Ensuring fair housing means that immigrant communities are not excluded from housing opportunities due to national origin.

In Hemet, addressing housing equity also involves ensuring that policies do not unintentionally discriminate against individuals based on their national origin. For example, immigrant families should have access to affordable housing in the same neighborhoods as U.S.-born families, allowing them the same opportunities for social and economic mobility.

3. Disability
Individuals with disabilities are a protected class under both federal and state fair housing laws.

Discrimination against people with disabilities can take many forms, from refusing to rent to them to failing to provide accessible housing options. In Hemet, like in many other cities, people with disabilities often face barriers to finding suitable and affordable housing that meets their needs, whether that involves physical accessibility (e.g., wheelchair ramps) or other accommodations (e.g., service animals).

Ensuring that housing options are accessible and inclusive for individuals with disabilities is critical in achieving fair housing. Hemet must ensure that new housing developments include accessible units and that policies are in place to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities.

4. Familial Status
Familial status refers to whether a household has children under the age of 18, and it is a protected class under fair housing law. Discrimination based on familial status can include policies that prevent families with children from renting in certain buildings or neighborhoods. Hemet’s housing strategies must ensure that families with children have access to housing in all parts of the city, not just in certain designated areas.

In practice, this means that the city must not only avoid discriminatory practices but also ensure that housing is available in neighborhoods that are conducive to family life, with access to schools, parks, and other amenities important for families with children.

5. Sex (Gender)
Sexual discrimination in housing is prohibited under both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The sex of a household’s members should not impact their ability to access housing. In Hemet, policies must ensure that individuals, regardless of gender or gender identity, have equal access to housing opportunities.

20.A.

46 Fair housing policies should guarantee that women, men, and non-binary individuals face no barriers when seeking housing. This includes ensuring equal access to housing in all neighborhoods, without discrimination based on sex or gender identity.

Demographic Profile of Hemet’s Protected Classes
The following sections provide an in-depth analysis of the demographic profile of Hemet, focusing on the racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, disability status, and familial status. The analysis will highlight how these factors intersect with fair housing goals and the importance of distributing housing opportunities equitably across protected classes.

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Hemet
The racial and ethnic composition of Hemet is a critical factor in assessing housing needs and promoting fair housing. According to demographic data, Hemet’s population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, followed by White, Black or African American, Asian, and other multiracial populations. Given this composition, the city must focus on promoting racial and ethnic integration through its housing policies, ensuring that all groups have access to housing opportunities regardless of their racial or ethnic background.

The proposed housing distribution should be designed to reduce racial and ethnic segregation, particularly in areas with a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino and non-White populations. By ensuring that affordable housing is available in higher-resource neighborhoods, Hemet can create a more balanced and integrated community, allowing individuals from all racial and ethnic backgrounds to access better opportunities.

Income Distribution in Hemet
Income inequality is a significant challenge in Hemet, with many households classified as low- or moderate-income. The city’s median household income is below the county average, which means that many residents struggle to afford housing in high-opportunity areas. The city’s fair housing policies must ensure that affordable housing is available to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households, particularly in areas with better access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities.

The proposed housing distribution includes a substantial portion of affordable housing in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low- and moderate-income residents. This is important because it targets areas with the most significant housing need, helping to improve housing stability for lower-income households. However, it is also important that these units are distributed in a way that prevents the over-concentration of affordable housing in already disadvantaged areas, which could lead to further isolation and limited access to resources.

20.A.

47 Disability Status in Hemet
The percentage of Hemet’s population living with a disability is an important consideration in the city’s housing policies. People with disabilities face unique challenges in finding accessible and affordable housing. The city’s fair housing strategy must ensure that housing units are not only affordable but also designed to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.

Hemet should focus on including accessible units in new housing developments and ensuring that modifications or accommodation are made available for existing tenants with disabilities. This includes the implementation of universal design principles and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to guarantee that people with disabilities can access housing on an equal basis with others.

Familial Status in Hemet
Familial status, which pertains to households with children under the age of 18, is another important factor in fair housing. Families with children should not be excluded from certain housing opportunities due to their familial status. In Hemet, the distribution of housing should ensure that families have access to housing in all neighborhoods, particularly those with access to schools, parks, and other amenities important for children.

Fair housing policies must promote diverse and inclusive communities where families can live, grow, and thrive. This includes not only prohibiting discrimination based on familial status but also ensuring that housing development in Hemet provides a range of options suitable for families with children.

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Hemet:

Race/Ethnicity Percentage
Hispanic/Latino 50%
White (Non-Hispanic) 40%
Black or African American 5%
Asian 3%
Other/Multiracial 2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

The racial and ethnic composition chart shows that Hemet has a significant Hispanic/Latino population, which represents half of the city's residents. Given this demographic, it is essential for the city to ensure that housing policies do not concentrate Hispanic/Latino populations in segregated areas but instead promote integration throughout the city. In particular, affordable housing should be distributed across neighborhoods, especially those with greater access to economic opportunities, to foster racial integration and reduce disparities in housing access.

20.A.

48 Income Distribution by Percentage of Population:

Income Range Percentage of Population
Low-Income (below 50% AMI) 35%
Moderate-Income (50-80% AMI) 25%
Middle-Income (80-120% AMI) 20%
High-Income (above 120% AMI) 20%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

The income distribution chart reveals that a substantial portion of Hemet’s population falls into the low- and moderate-income categories, with 35% classified as low-income and 25% as moderateincome. This underscores the importance of creating affordable housing opportunities to meet the needs of the largest segment of the population. The distribution of affordable housing should be carefully planned to ensure that it targets areas with the greatest need, while also avoiding the concentration of low-income housing in neighborhoods already facing economic challenges. Such strategic distribution helps promote access to better educational, healthcare, and employment opportunities for low-income families.

Disability Status in Hemet:

Disability Status Percentage of Population
No Disability 75%
Has Disability 25%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2022.

The disability status chart indicates that a quarter of Hemet’s population lives with a disability. This highlights the need for accessible housing and the importance of ensuring that new housing developments include accessible units. To meet fair housing standards, the city must prioritize including accessible units and providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, ensuring that they are not excluded from housing options due to physical barriers or discriminatory practices.

Familial Status:

Familial Status Percentage of Households
Families with Children 45%
Households without Children 55%
Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, 2023
The familial status chart shows that nearly half of Hemet’s households have children under the age of

18. This highlights the need for housing policies that accommodate families with children, ensuring they have access to housing in all neighborhoods, particularly those with quality schools and familyPage 257 of 275

20.A.

49 friendly amenities. Policies must avoid excluding families from housing options based on their familial status and must ensure that children and their families have equitable access to opportunities for growth and development.

Hemet’s approach to fair housing must prioritize the needs of protected classes, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, low-income residents, individuals with disabilities, and families with children. The distribution of housing opportunities must promote integration, reduce segregation, and provide equitable access to resources and opportunities. The city’s housing policies should focus on breaking down barriers to housing access, ensuring that all protected classes have the same opportunities to thrive in Hemet’s communities. By addressing these issues, Hemet can make significant strides toward achieving fair housing and fostering a more inclusive and integrated city for all its residents.

Assessment of Fair Housing Practices in Hemet
Review of Current Practices Related to Fair Housing Enforcement and Education Fair housing enforcement and education in the City of Hemet are supported by multiple local and regional entities, emphasizing the reduction of discrimination, public education, and the removal of systemic barriers to equitable housing. These efforts are primarily spearheaded by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), which collaborates with the city to address housing discrimination, promote fair housing practices, and ensure compliance with federal and state laws.

According to the FHCRC’s reports, the majority of fair housing inquiries in Hemet during recent years have pertained to disability discrimination (50%) and familial status discrimination (32%), indicating persistent challenges for vulnerable populations such as individuals with disabilities and families with children.

The FHCRC’s reports also highlight a growing need for tailored solutions to address systemic discrimination in rental practices. The organization documented multiple cases where tenants reported being denied housing accommodations or modifications required due to their disabilities. For example, common complaints included landlords’ refusal to install ramps or accept service animals, even when such accommodations are legally mandated. These cases often require intervention by FHCRC staff to mediate and ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In response, FHCRC has emphasized the importance of educating both landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities under the law.

Additionally, FHCRC’s reports have revealed a concerning rise in income-based discrimination, particularly against Section 8 voucher holders. This issue disproportionately affects low-income families, many of whom report being steered toward substandard housing options or outright denied tenancy. The FHCRC has been proactive in addressing these complaints through advocacy efforts and

20.A.

50 by working closely with the City of Hemet to implement targeted outreach programs aimed at reducing stigma and ensuring fair treatment of voucher holders.

Education and outreach remain central to FHCRC’s mission. The organization’s annual fair housing workshops provide critical training for landlords, property managers, and community stakeholders.

Topics covered include the basics of fair housing laws, common discriminatory practices, and strategies for fostering inclusive rental environments. These workshops are supplemented by the distribution of multilingual informational materials and the maintenance of a resource hotline that allows residents to report discrimination or seek guidance on housing-related issues. According to FHCRC’s annual activity reports, these efforts have significantly increased awareness among community members, with a notable uptick in inquiries and participation in educational events over the past two years.

Fair Housing Inquiries by Type (2023)
Discrimination Type Percentage (%)
Disability 50%
Familial Status 32%
Other 18%
Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, 2023
Hemet’s approach to education and outreach has been multifaceted, aiming to inform both tenants and landlords about their rights and responsibilities under state and federal fair housing laws. The FHCRC has conducted regular workshops, developed multilingual informational materials, and collaborated with community organizations to broaden its outreach. Despite these efforts, a significant portion of the population remains unaware of their housing rights. The 2023 Hemet Analysis of Impediments Survey revealed that while 40% of respondents felt somewhat informed, 20% reported being entirely unaware of housing discrimination laws.

The 2023 Hemet Fair Housing Survey further emphasized the gaps in public understanding and enforcement mechanisms. Conducted as part of the city's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the survey collected input from residents, landlords, and community organizations. Key findings included:
• Encountering Housing Discrimination: 25% of respondents reported experiencing or knowing someone who had experienced housing discrimination. Common types cited included refusal to rent, racial steering, and denial of reasonable accommodations for disabilities. • Public Awareness: Only 30% of respondents stated they felt well-informed about housing discrimination laws, underscoring a significant need for enhanced public education campaigns. • Reporting Mechanisms: A significant number of participants (33%) indicated they were unsure how to report discrimination, and many lacked confidence in the effectiveness of existing enforcement processes

20.A.

51 Key Findings from the 2023 Hemet Fair Housing Survey Question Key Responses (%)
Have you encountered housing discrimination? Yes: 25%, No: 75% Do you feel well-informed about fair housing
laws?
Yes: 30%, Somewhat: 40%, No: 30%
Confidence in reporting mechanisms Confident: 40%, Unsure: 33%, Not Confident:
27%
Source: Hemet Fair Housing Survey, 2024
The survey’s comment section provided valuable insights into the lived experiences of Hemet residents and their perceptions of housing discrimination. Specific examples include:

1. Challenges Faced by Section 8 Voucher Holders:
o One respondent shared: “I was told that the property doesn’t accept vouchers, even though it’s illegal. They claimed it’s ‘too much paperwork.’” This highlights the barriers imposed by landlords unwilling to accommodate low-income families despite legal protections.

2. Disability Discrimination:
o A tenant noted: “My landlord refused to build a ramp for my wheelchair, saying it’s ‘too expensive,’ even though I offered to pay for it.” Such cases underscore the need for stronger enforcement of reasonable accommodation laws.

3. Racial Steering:
o A Black resident reported: “The landlord said the neighborhood might not be a good fit for me and suggested I look elsewhere.” This exemplifies subtle yet pervasive discrimination based on race.

4. Familial Status Issues:
o A family shared: “We were denied a rental because they said our kids would make too much noise for the neighbors.” Families with children often face discriminatory assumptions that limit their housing options.

5. Complex Reporting Processes:
o A participant commented: “I tried reporting discrimination, but the forms were confusing, and no one followed up. It feels pointless to even try.” This indicates the need for streamlined, accessible reporting mechanisms.

The survey also included open-ended questions, allowing residents to suggest improvements for addressing housing discrimination in Hemet. Common themes included:

1. Enhanced Accessibility: Residents requested simplified, multilingual reporting tools to make it easier for individuals to report discrimination.

2. Increased Transparency: Many respondents emphasized the importance of publicizing enforcement outcomes to build trust in the system.

3. Community-Based Outreach: Suggestions included partnering with local organizations and community leaders to deliver targeted education programs, particularly in underserved neighborhoods.

20.A.

52 These findings have informed Hemet’s updated fair housing strategy, which prioritizes public engagement, improved enforcement mechanisms, and collaboration with regional partners like the FHCRC.

To address these gaps, Hemet has identified specific areas for improvement, including increased funding for public education initiatives and targeted outreach to underserved communities. Enhanced collaborations between city agencies and nonprofit organizations are expected to expand the reach and impact of fair housing education programs.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Public Trust
The effectiveness of fair housing enforcement mechanisms in Hemet has been a focal point of public discourse. Survey data suggests that while the existing systems provide avenues for reporting discrimination, many residents remain skeptical of their accessibility and effectiveness. Approximately 33% of respondents in the 2024 Hemet Fair Housing Survey indicated uncertainty about how to report discrimination, and others cited concerns regarding the transparency and responsiveness of local agencies.

The City of Hemet’s 2021-2029 Housing Element outlines a series of planned improvements to enforcement mechanisms. These include:
• Streamlining the process for reporting housing discrimination through digital platforms. • Increasing transparency by publicly sharing outcomes of reported cases. • Strengthening partnerships with the FHCRC and other regional entities to enhance investigative capacities
Public Awareness of Reporting Mechanisms
Awareness Level Percentage (%)
Fully Informed 47%
Somewhat Informed 33%
Unaware 20%
Source: Hemet Fair Housing Survey, 2024
These initiatives aim to build public confidence in the city’s commitment to fair housing while ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to effective enforcement tools.

Evaluation of Outreach Efforts and Community Engagement Hemet’s outreach strategy to address housing inequities has evolved over the years, incorporating both traditional and digital methods to engage a broad spectrum of the community. Public workshops, surveys, and informational campaigns form the backbone of these efforts. The city’s commitment to inclusive participation is reflected in its multilingual materials and the availability of translation services at public events.

20.A.

53 The Hemet Housing Element (2021-2029) emphasizes targeted outreach to low- and moderate-income households, particularly those in marginalized communities. Notable initiatives include virtual workshops during the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of social media platforms to disseminate information. However, participation data suggests room for improvement. While workshops drew diverse audiences, only 25% of respondents to the 2024 Hemet Fair Housing Survey expressed confidence that the city’s efforts adequately addressed housing discrimination.

Public Perception of Outreach Efforts
Outreach Effectiveness Percentage (%)
Effective 50%
Somewhat Effective 30%
Ineffective 20%
Source: Hemet Housing Element, 2024
Participants in the survey highlighted key areas where outreach efforts could improve:

1. Digital Engagement: Respondents recommended the use of social media platforms to disseminate fair housing information more effectively, targeting younger demographics and renters.

2. In-Person Workshops: Residents expressed a preference for accessible, neighborhood-level workshops that cater to specific groups, such as seniors and non-English speaking populations.

3. Partnerships with Local Organizations: Several respondents suggested that collaboration with trusted community groups, churches, and schools would enhance the credibility and reach of outreach programs.

4. Better Marketing of Resources: Many participants noted that existing fair housing resources are not well-publicized, leading to low awareness and utilization.

To enhance outreach efficacy, the city has proposed:
• Expanding the use of digital tools to reach broader audiences. • Establishing ongoing partnerships with local community organizations. • Increasing the visibility of fair housing materials in public spaces such as libraries and community centers.
• Hosting periodic town hall meetings to provide updates on fair housing policies and address community concerns.

20.A.

54 Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Hemet Quantitative Data Analysis: Statistics and Trends Related to Housing Discrimination, Affordability, and Access
The housing landscape in Hemet reflects challenges seen nationwide in affordability, housing discrimination, and inequities in access. Quantitative data from surveys, reports, and housing analyses provide insights into critical gaps in enforcement, systemic barriers, and economic disparities that impede fair housing.

Housing Discrimination
Housing discrimination continues to be a significant challenge in Hemet, as indicated by data from the 2023 Hemet Fair Housing Survey and local fair housing reports. The survey revealed that 25% of respondents had experienced or knew someone who had experienced housing discrimination. The types of discrimination reported reflect systemic biases:
• Income-Based Bias: The most frequently cited form of discrimination, with 30% of respondents identifying it as a barrier. Many residents reported landlords refusing to rent to Section 8 voucher holders despite legal protections.
• Race and Ethnicity: Cited by 25% of respondents, racial discrimination included issues like racial steering and overt denials based on ethnicity.
• Familial Status: 20% of respondents reported challenges related to having children, including assumptions about noise or property damage.
• Disability Discrimination: A key issue, with 50% of fair housing inquiries citing discrimination against physical or mental disabilities
Housing Discrimination Trends in Hemet (2023)
Discrimination Type Percentage of Reports (%)
Income-Based Bias 30%
Racial/Ethnic Bias 25%
Familial Status Issues 20%
Disability Discrimination 50%
Source: Hemet Fair Housing Survey, 2023
Survey responses revealed a lack of awareness about how to address these issues. Approximately 33% of respondents were unsure how to report discrimination, and 14% felt uninformed about fair housing laws. These findings underscore the need for targeted education campaigns to improve awareness and reporting mechanisms.

20.A.

55 Additional qualitative data from focus groups and community forums emphasized the subtle yet persistent nature of discrimination in Hemet. Participants shared stories of differential treatment based on ethnicity, such as higher security deposits or being steered away from certain neighborhoods.

These anecdotes illustrate the need for ongoing monitoring and enforcement of fair housing laws.

Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a pervasive issue in Hemet, driven by rising rental costs and a limited supply of affordable units. The 2021-2029 Housing Element highlights these concerns:
• Cost-Burdened Households: 45% of renters and 35% of homeowners in Hemet spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Among extremely low-income renters, 84% experience severe cost burdens.
• Rising Rental Costs: Median rents exceed $2,000 for many units, creating affordability gaps for low-income households even with assistance like Section 8 vouchers.

Housing Cost Burdens in Hemet
The lack of affordable housing units in high-opportunity areas exacerbates this issue. Many low-income families are forced into neighborhoods with limited access to quality schools, healthcare, and public transportation. This geographic disparity perpetuates cycles of poverty and restricts upward mobility.

Eviction cases have also become a growing concern. Reports from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County indicate a sharp rise in tenant complaints related to unfair evictions and excessive rent increases. These trends highlight the need for stronger tenant protections and local ordinances to regulate rent hikes.

Barriers to Access
Barriers to housing access extend beyond affordability and discrimination. Structural and systemic factors such as restrictive zoning laws and predatory practices further limit equitable access to housing:
• Zoning Constraints: Hemet’s reliance on single-family zoning limits the development of affordable multi-family units, perpetuating segregation and reducing housing opportunities for low-income families.
• Predatory Practices: Examples include renovictions, where landlords evict tenants under the pretext of renovations, and exploitative lending practices that disproportionately affect minority households.
• Limited Access to Financing: Respondents frequently cited discriminatory lending practices, with 15% identifying this as a barrier to homeownership.

20.A.

56 Recommendations: Actions to Address Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Hemet Addressing fair housing impediments in Hemet requires a multifaceted approach grounded in community feedback and evidence-based practices. This section outlines actionable strategies to combat discrimination, expand housing affordability, and eliminate systemic barriers. By implementing these recommendations, Hemet can create a more equitable housing environment.

Strengthen Fair Housing Enforcement

1. Establish a Centralized Reporting System: Develop an online platform for reporting housing discrimination, featuring user-friendly interfaces, multilingual support, and anonymous submissions. This system will empower residents to report issues confidently.

2. Enhance Enforcement Mechanisms: Allocate additional resources to fair housing enforcement agencies, such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. These agencies can collaborate with state and federal authorities to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

3. Regular Audits and Testing: Implement random audits and paired testing to uncover discriminatory practices in rental and lending markets. Data from these activities can inform targeted interventions.

4. Dedicated Ombudsman Office: Establish a local office for housing discrimination complaints to ensure cases are addressed promptly and transparently.

Proposed Enforcement Enhancements
Action Expected Outcome
Centralized Reporting System Increased reporting and case resolution Audits and Testing Identification of systemic discrimination Dedicated Ombudsman Office Faster resolution and public accountability Source: Hemet Fair Housing Analysis, 2024
Expand Public Awareness and Education

1. Comprehensive Education Campaigns: Design targeted campaigns that educate tenants, landlords, and property managers about fair housing laws and rights. Leverage social media, local media outlets, and workshops to reach diverse audiences.

2. Landlord and Property Manager Training: Mandate regular training on anti-discrimination policies and reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Certification upon completion can incentivize participation.

3. Tenant Rights Resources: Develop guides and toolkits in multiple languages to help tenants understand their rights and navigate housing challenges effectively.

20.A.

57 4. Youth and Family Engagement: Incorporate fair housing topics into school curricula and community programs to build long-term awareness and advocacy.

Public Awareness Strategies by Impact (Estimated effectiveness of strategies in increasing public awareness)
• Tenant Guides: 35%
• Landlord Training: 25%
• Social Media Campaigns: 40% Source: Hemet Fair Housing Survey, 2024 Increase Affordable Housing Supply

1. Inclusionary Zoning Policies: Expand requirements for new developments to include affordable units. Incentivize developers with tax credits or expedited approval processes.

2. Streamlined Approvals for Affordable Projects: Simplify permitting and approval processes to reduce delays and costs for affordable housing projects.

3. Utilization of Public Land: Prioritize public land for affordable housing developments through long-term leases or sales to nonprofit developers.

4. Density Bonuses: Provide additional allowances for higher-density developments that include a significant portion of affordable units.

Strategies to Expand Affordable Housing Supply
Strategy Anticipated Benefit
Inclusionary Zoning Policies Balanced distribution of affordable units Streamlined Approvals Faster development of affordable housing Public Land Utilization Cost-effective housing projects Source: Hemet Housing Needs Assessment, 2023
Revise Zoning and Land-Use Policies

1. Promote Mixed-Use and High-Density Development: Amend zoning ordinances to encourage mixed-use and high-density housing in transit-oriented and high-opportunity areas.

2. Eliminate Single-Family Zoning Barriers: Allow duplexes, triplexes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in traditionally single-family zones to diversify the housing stock.

3. Adopt Anti-Displacement Measures: Introduce relocation assistance and tenant protections to mitigate displacement due to gentrification or redevelopment projects.

Zoning Policy Adjustments (Projected impact of zoning changes on housing diversity and affordability) • Mixed-Use Development: 40%
• ADUs and Duplexes: 35%
• Anti-Displacement Policies: 25% Source: Hemet Housing Element, 2023

20.A.

58 Address Systemic Disparities

1. Environmental Justice Planning: Distribute affordable housing developments equitably, ensuring they are not concentrated in environmentally hazardous areas.

2. Targeted Financial Assistance: Expand rental assistance programs for low-income households to alleviate housing cost burdens.

3. Collaborative Partnerships: Partner with advocacy groups, local businesses, and developers to address systemic inequities and promote fair housing goals.

Systemic Disparity Solutions
Action Impact
Environmental Justice Healthier living conditions
Financial Assistance Reduced housing cost burdens
Collaborative Partnerships Enhanced resources and innovative solutions Source: Hemet Analysis of Impediments Survey
Improve Data Collection and Analysis

1. Annual Fair Housing Reports: Publish detailed reports on fair housing complaints, resolutions, and trends to maintain transparency and accountability.

2. Disaggregated Data Analysis: Collect data by race, income, and disability status to identify disparities and tailor interventions.

3. Community Surveys: Conduct regular surveys to gauge resident experiences and the effectiveness of policies.

Data Collection and Analysis Actions
Action Purpose
Annual Reports Transparency and accountability
Disaggregated Data Targeted interventions
Community Surveys Feedback on policy effectiveness
Source: Hemet Fair Housing Reports, 2023
Monitoring and Accountability
To ensure the success of these initiatives, Hemet must establish robust monitoring and accountability systems:
• Regular Evaluations: Assess the impact of implemented policies and programs. • Community Feedback Mechanisms: Host public forums and advisory committees to gather resident input.
• Performance Metrics: Develop key indicators, such as reductions in housing discrimination cases and increases in affordable housing units.

20.A.

59 Conclusion
Recap of the analysis and the importance of implementing recommendations.

The comprehensive analysis of fair housing conditions in Hemet has illuminated significant and multifaceted challenges that necessitate immediate and strategic action. These issues, deeply rooted in systemic inequities, manifest through affordability crises, discriminatory practices, and structural barriers perpetuated by zoning laws and policy constraints. Addressing these impediments is essential to fostering a fair and inclusive housing environment for all residents, particularly those from historically marginalized and vulnerable populations. This conclusion synthesizes the key findings of the analysis and underscores the imperative of implementing the outlined recommendations.

Recap of Findings

1. Persistent Affordability Crisis: Hemet faces an acute affordability crisis that disproportionately affects low- and moderate-income residents. Data reveals that 12,190 households experience housing cost burdens exceeding 30% of their income, with 2,620 households enduring severe cost burdens by spending more than 50%. This financial strain disproportionately impacts Hispanic households, where over 20% face severe burdens. Rising rental prices and stagnant wages exacerbate this crisis, limiting access to stable housing and perpetuating economic inequality.

2. Discriminatory Practices in Housing: Discrimination in housing markets, though less overt than in the past, remains a significant impediment. Racial and ethnic disparities in mortgage denial rates highlight systemic issues: Black and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander applicants face denial rates of 58.2% and 84.8%, respectively, compared to 36% for White applicants. Furthermore, the prevalence of income-based discrimination, particularly against individuals relying on rental assistance, reinforces barriers to housing access. The lack of adequate ADA-compliant housing further marginalizes individuals with disabilities, restricting their ability to secure appropriate accommodations.

3. Barriers in Zoning and Land Use Policies: The city’s reliance on single-family zoning limits the development of diverse housing types, particularly in high-opportunity areas. This not only perpetuates economic segregation but also hinders progress toward meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets, which include developing 812 very low-income units by 2029.

The slow pace of adopting state initiatives like SB 9 and SB 10 underscores the need for local action to align zoning policies with fair housing goals.

4. Inadequate Housing Stock and Conditions: A significant portion of Hemet’s housing stock is aging, with 47% of homes over 35 years old requiring maintenance or rehabilitation. Substandard housing

20.A.

60 conditions, such as units lacking plumbing or kitchen facilities, disproportionately affect low-income families and exacerbate health and safety risks. Additionally, the rising homelessness rate—a 35% increase from 2020 to 2023—further highlights the urgent need for safe and affordable housing options.

5. Vulnerabilities Among Special Populations: Special populations, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness, face unique housing challenges.

Seniors, who comprise 22.1% of the population, often struggle with housing affordability and accessibility. Farmworkers, earning an average annual income of $25,723, face precarious living conditions and lack stable housing options. Similarly, individuals experiencing homelessness require tailored interventions to address their diverse needs, including access to emergency shelters and transitional housing.

Importance of Implementing Recommendations
Addressing these findings through targeted actions is not only a legal obligation under federal and state fair housing laws but also a moral imperative and an economic necessity. The successful implementation of these recommendations will create a foundation for equity, sustainability, and resilience within the community. Below are the core areas of focus for these recommendations:

1. Strengthening Legal Protections: Enforcing existing fair housing laws and expanding tenant protections are essential to combating discrimination and ensuring housing stability. Key strategies include:
• Increasing funding and capacity for local fair housing enforcement agencies. • Expanding legal aid services for tenants to address unjust evictions and discriminatory practices. • Conducting proactive investigations to identify systemic discrimination.

2. Expanding Affordable Housing Supply: To alleviate the affordability crisis, Hemet must prioritize the development of diverse and affordable housing options. Recommended actions include:
• Implementing inclusionary zoning policies to require affordable units in new developments. • Streamlining permitting processes to accelerate the construction of affordable housing. • Offering financial incentives, such as tax credits, to developers focusing on low-income housing. • Leveraging state and federal funding programs to bridge financing gaps.

3. Promoting Accessibility and Equity: Ensuring equitable access to housing for all residents requires targeted interventions to address systemic barriers. Suggested measures include:
• Increasing the stock of ADA-compliant housing units through grants and rehabilitation programs.

20.A.

61 • Educating landlords and property managers about fair housing laws and the benefits of accepting rental assistance programs like Section 8.
• Establishing robust outreach initiatives to empower marginalized communities with knowledge of their rights and resources.

4. Revising Zoning and Land-Use Policies: Revising local zoning ordinances is critical to dismantling structural barriers to fair housing. Actions include:
• Encouraging higher-density developments in transit-oriented and resource-rich areas. • Aligning local policies with state laws, such as SB 9 and SB 10, to facilitate diverse housing types. • Incentivizing mixed-use developments that integrate residential, commercial, and community spaces.

5. Enhancing Infrastructure and Community Services: Investments in infrastructure and community services are vital to supporting equitable housing development and improving quality of life. Key initiatives include:
• Expanding public transportation networks to connect residents with employment centers and essential services.
• Developing community facilities, such as healthcare centers and educational institutions, in underserved neighborhoods.
• Enhancing utilities and public safety infrastructure to support new and existing housing developments.

6. Supporting Vulnerable Populations: Tailored programs and services are essential for addressing the needs of special populations. Recommended actions include:
• Increasing funding for emergency shelters and transitional housing programs. • Establishing supportive housing models for individuals experiencing homelessness and those with disabilities.
• Collaborating with agricultural employers to develop stable housing solutions for farmworkers. • Providing rental subsidies and housing repair grants for low-income seniors and families.

7. Fostering Collaboration and Community Engagement: Collaborative efforts with stakeholders are essential to the successful implementation of fair housing initiatives. Suggested strategies include:
• Partnering with advocacy organizations, such as fair housing agencies, to deliver education and outreach programs.
• Engaging developers and local businesses to create employer-assisted housing programs. • Involving community members in the decision-making process to ensure policies reflect diverse perspectives and needs.

20.A.

62 8. Establishing Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms: Transparency and accountability are critical to measuring progress and maintaining public trust. Recommended actions include:
• Publishing regular fair housing reports with disaggregated data on discrimination cases and housing development progress.
• Setting measurable performance metrics, such as the number of affordable units built or reductions in cost burdens.
• Conducting annual community surveys to gather feedback and adjust strategies as needed.

Broader Impacts of Implementing Recommendations
The implementation of these recommendations will have far-reaching benefits for Hemet’s residents and the community at large. Housing is a fundamental determinant of health, economic stability, and social well-being. By addressing impediments to fair housing, Hemet can achieve the following outcomes:

1. Economic Growth: Investing in affordable housing and infrastructure will stimulate local economic activity, attract diverse talent, and create jobs. A stable housing market will also reduce social costs associated with homelessness and displacement.

2. Social Equity: Promoting equitable access to housing will reduce disparities, foster community cohesion, and build trust among residents. Ensuring that all individuals, regardless of race, income, or disability status, have access to safe and affordable housing is integral to creating an inclusive society.

3. Environmental Sustainability: Encouraging higher-density developments and transit-oriented housing will reduce urban sprawl and minimize environmental impacts. These strategies align with broader goals of sustainable urban planning and climate resilience.

4. Improved Quality of Life: Access to affordable and high-quality housing improves residents’ overall well-being, enabling them to focus on education, employment, and community participation. This enhances Hemet’s cultural and social vitality.

The findings of this analysis underscore the urgency of addressing the systemic impediments to fair housing in Hemet. Implementing the outlined recommendations is not just about compliance with legal mandates; it represents a commitment to building a community where every resident has the opportunity to thrive. By prioritizing equity, collaboration, and sustainability, Hemet can pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive future for all.

20.A.

63 Methodology
Description of data sources (e.g., census data, surveys, interviews).

The analysis incorporates multiple data sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of housing discrimination, affordability, and access in the City of Hemet. These sources include public surveys, housing policy documents, fair housing activity reports, and data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).

The City of Hemet Analysis of Impediments Survey offers a direct perspective from residents on their experiences, perceptions, and understanding of housing discrimination. The survey included 99 respondents, who provided both quantitative and qualitative responses. Key areas explored include awareness of housing discrimination, the willingness to report incidents, and the specific types of discrimination encountered. This data offers a localized view of housing issues, directly reflecting community sentiment.

The Hemet 2021-2029 Housing Element, a policy document prepared by the City of Hemet, outlines the city’s housing goals, needs assessments, and constraints for the planning period. It integrates a wide range of quantitative data, including demographic profiles, housing stock characteristics, housing affordability metrics, and the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations. The Housing Element draws on state and regional data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Fair Housing Activities Reports (2021-2023), prepared by the Housing Rights Center, documents inquiries related to discrimination, tenant-landlord issues, and public outreach activities. It provides a breakdown of discrimination cases by protected classifications (e.g., race, disability, familial status) and details tenant concerns such as eviction, rent increases, and substandard living conditions. The report also includes data on the demographic profiles of those accessing services and the outreach efforts aimed at addressing fair housing issues.

Additionally, the American Community Survey (ACS), conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau, serves as a vital source for demographic, economic, and housing data. The ACS offers detailed information on population characteristics, income levels, housing tenure, and cost burdens, providing a broader context for analyzing housing affordability and discrimination in Hemet. For example, ACS data was used to assess rental cost burdens, poverty rates, and demographic trends, which were then compared with local survey findings to identify consistencies and disparities.

20.A.

64 Supplementary data from advocacy organizations and state programs, such as the California Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), provided additional insights into systemic challenges like affordability gaps and barriers to accessing housing.

Explanation of the analytical methods used.

The analysis applies both quantitative and qualitative methods to identify trends, relationships, and systemic issues related to housing discrimination, affordability, and access.

Descriptive statistical analysis was used to summarize and interpret quantitative data. Metrics such as percentages, frequencies, and averages were calculated to identify patterns. For example, the percentage of survey respondents who reported encountering housing discrimination was determined, as well as the frequency of specific discrimination types like income-based bias or racial discrimination.

Similarly, ACS data on cost-burdened households and median rental costs was used to contextualize affordability challenges in Hemet.

Trend analysis was employed to track changes in housing conditions over time, particularly with data from the Housing Element and ACS. This included analyzing shifts in rental costs, income levels, and housing stock characteristics to understand how these factors impact affordability and access.

Comparative analysis was conducted to juxtapose local data with regional and national trends. For instance, Hemet’s RHNA allocations and housing cost burdens were compared with broader trends in Riverside County and California. This approach provided context for understanding how the city’s housing challenges align with or deviate from regional patterns.

Qualitative analysis focused on open-ended survey responses and narrative data from the Fair Housing Activities Report. Responses were coded thematically to identify recurring issues, such as barriers to reporting discrimination or perceptions of systemic bias. These themes were used to complement quantitative findings and offer a deeper understanding of residents’ lived experiences.

Geospatial analysis was applied to data from the Housing Element, such as the location of housing opportunity sites and areas identified as disadvantaged communities. Mapping these areas allowed for an exploration of spatial patterns in housing access, highlighting disparities in affordability and the availability of housing.

Lastly, ACS data was integrated into multiple stages of the analysis. Demographic and economic indicators from the ACS, such as poverty rates, median household income, and housing tenure, were

20.A.

65 used to assess the socioeconomic context of Hemet’s housing challenges. The ACS data also provided a benchmark for validating findings from local sources, ensuring consistency and reliability.

Limitations of the analysis
The analysis is subject to several limitations stemming from data availability, sample size, and representativeness. One major limitation is the small sample size of the Analysis of Impediments Survey, which included only 99 respondents. While the survey provides valuable insights, the limited number of participants may not fully capture the diversity of experiences and perspectives within Hemet’s population. Sampling bias may also be present, as certain demographic groups or neighborhoods may be underrepresented.

Another limitation is the reliance on self-reported data in both the survey and fair housing reports.

Respondents may have varying interpretations of housing discrimination or may be hesitant to disclose their experiences. This could lead to underreporting or misclassification of discrimination cases, potentially skewing the results.

The analysis depends heavily on secondary data from the Housing Element, Fair Housing Activities Report, and ACS. While these sources provide extensive quantitative data, they may not fully account for informal or undocumented housing practices that contribute to discrimination and affordability challenges. Additionally, the Housing Element’s projections and trends are based on historical data and current policies, which may not fully capture future economic or demographic shifts.

The integration of ACS data introduces its own set of challenges. Although ACS provides detailed and reliable data, it is subject to margins of error, particularly for smaller geographic areas like Hemet.

Moreover, the ACS’s reliance on sampling and multi-year estimates may limit its ability to reflect rapid changes in housing conditions or local economic trends.

Geographic data, such as the identification of housing opportunity sites, may not fully reflect the lived realities of residents in disadvantaged communities. While the Housing Element incorporates spatial analysis, it does not provide granular data on localized disparities, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about specific neighborhoods or subpopulations.

Lastly, the analysis does not include real-time data or recent developments, such as post-2022 economic conditions or changes in state housing policies. This temporal limitation highlights the need for continuous data collection and monitoring to inform future housing policies and initiatives effectively.

20.A.

66 References
A comprehensive list of all sources cited throughout the document. • 2022 Adopted Hemet Housing Element
• U.S. Census Bureau data, including Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional housing needs projections. • California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines for affordable housing and RHNA compliance.
• Housing Needs Assessment reports detailing affordability metrics, cost-burden statistics, and demographic trends.
• Local land-use and zoning ordinances as referenced in the Housing Element analysis. • Housing production data tied to previous RHNA cycles and city housing program reports. • Public engagement findings from city-led community workshops and surveys regarding housing priorities and challenges.
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data to analyze housing opportunity sites and environmental constraints.
• Economic data on local employment growth and its impact on housing demand and affordability.
• Results from the City of Hemet Analysis of Impediments (AI) Survey with quantitative and qualitative community input.
• Data from the Housing Rights Center regarding fair housing complaints, including discrimination cases by protected categories (e.g., race, disability, familial status). • Federal fair housing laws, including the Fair Housing Act and California-specific legal frameworks.
• Historical data on discriminatory practices, such as redlining and racial covenants, impacting housing patterns in Hemet.
• Information on predatory lending and renoviction practices collected from tenant advocacy organizations.
• Input from public forums and outreach sessions conducted during the AI development process.
• Review of existing tenant protections and gaps in enforcement mechanisms as reported by local stakeholders.

20.A.

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Apr 22 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:

Appeal (APL) 25-001 of the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Development Review (SDR23- 001), Variance (VAR23-001) Highpointe Aster River Oaks Apartments Approval to Construct a 228- Unit Multi-Family Housing Community on a 10.07 Gross Acre Site, and Variance From the Private Open Space Requirements.

Environmental: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program were prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 1500 et seq.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

1. Open a public hearing and take testimony, if any; and

2. Uphold Planning Commission Determinations: the determinations of the Planning Commission to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 25-002 to Adopt Planning Commission Environmental Resolution (Attachment No. 1) by adopting an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study as provided in Exhibit 1A and 1B and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Deny Appeal No. 25-001: the appellant’s appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adoption of PC Resolution No. PC 25-003 approving Site Development Review (SDR23-001), Variance (VAR23-001) to construct a 228-unit multi-family housing community on a 10.07 gross acre site, and variance from the private open space requirements.

BACKGROUND:

On March 10, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a request to construct a 228-unit multi-family residential apartment complex, processed under a Site Development Review (SDR) process, with a

20.B.

Variance related to private open space and a Parcel Merger to combine two parcels into a single parcel. The development includes eight three-story apartment buildings and a one-story clubhouse and leasing office. Apartment buildings will consist of studios and one- and two-bedroom dwelling units. Project amenities include a clubhouse with a gym, community spaces, co-working, a leasing office, a swimming pool, play areas, associated parking, landscaped open space, and a dog park.

At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted (5/0) to:

1. Adopt Planning Commission Environmental Resolution (Attachment No. 1) by adopting an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study as provided in Exhibit 1A and 1B and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment No. 2) by approving Site Development Review (SDR23-001) and Variance (VAR23-001) as provided in Exhibit 2A, 2B, and 2C Development Plans, subject to the Conditions of Approval as provided in Exhibit 2D; and

3. Authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.

On March 17, 2025 a letter of appeal was received from the Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley requesting that the City Council rescind the Planning Commission's approval of the Project, and then approve it with added conditions to include a charging outlet of a minimum 3.5 KW at each parking spot, and clean-air kitchens using induction technology.

ANALYSIS:

Grounds for Appeal

1. A letter of comments on the project was submitted by the Green Coalition, which was sent to the Community Development Director on January 19, 2025, was not attached to the staff report. As a result, the commissioners were unable to view the information, research it and form an opinion.

2. In her presentation to the Committee, the Community Development Director described the comments received from the public, but neglected to mention the above letter.

3. By neglecting to add the following conditions, the Planning Commission neglected their duty to the residents of Hemet.
 Providing electric vehicle charging outlets for each parking space. Appellant indicated that starting January 1, 2026 chargers will be mandatory for new construction.  Mandate electric (induction) stoves and ovens
Applicant's Response to Appeal
The Green Coalition’s written comments were not included in the Staff Report; their position was presented verbally during the March 10, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. The Applicant addressed their comments at that time and also responded to related questions from the Commissioners.

20.B.

Staff Note: The Green Coalition’s email to the Community Development Director, dated January 19, 2025, was later discovered in the SPAM folder. Staff has since contacted the IT Help Desk to help prevent similar issues in the future.

The following is a summary of the Green Coalition’s requests from the appeal, along with the 2022 Code Requirement included in the Conditions of Approval, and the Applicant’s feedback:

EV Capabilities
Green Coalition Request:

Charging point for each parking space.

Applicable Project Requirement per 2022 Codes:

The following electric vehicle charging requirements will be installed per full compliance with Calgreen (California Energy Code) 4.106.4.2.2.2
 10% Installed Level 2 EV chargers (physical charger installed, ready to charge on site)  40% EV Ready Receptacles
Applicant Response:

This code applied to the project’s site plan will sum to a total of 50% of all parking having EV infrastructure. The Applicant has provided a total of 453 parking spaces, which will include 226 of the locations equipped with EV infrastructure, equating to 99% of the units having access to (1) EV charger or receptacle.

All Electric Apartments with Induction Stoves and Ovens Green Coalition Request:

All appliances to be fully electric (induction stove tops, induction ovens, furnaces, and water heaters).

Applicable Project Requirement per 2022 Code:

Gas or electric appliances are permitted.

Applicant Response:

We do not have a mechanical engineering firm contracted to this Project yet, who we will rely on as experts to help guide these decisions. At this time, applicant has intention of units being ‘all electric’, however final selection of product specifications is not vetted until later in the design stage. Product selection is also not a criterion for the City of Hemet’s design guidelines during the Entitlement stage.

Additional Response from the Applicant: It should also be noted that this project included a submission of the qualifying Senate Bill (SB 330) application in accordance with state law. The summary of Senate Bill 330 (listed on Page 11 of 270 of the Planning Staff Report Dated March 10, 2025), limits discretionary review of housing development projects. The Housing Laws further restrict discretionary review on market-rate housing development projects. If the project complies with the objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards in effect at the time that the development application was deemed complete, the project can only be denied if the City can support the following findings:

20.B.

1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health safety; and
2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.

As stated in the Staff Report, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element, High Density Residential (R-3) zoning designation and is consistent with applicable design guidelines. Neither additional EV requirements or all electric apartments with induction stoves and ovens addressed by Green Coalition in the appeal letter fall within the City of Hemet’s design guidelines.

In summary, the Project, as shown in the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval, complies with the effective (2022) code standards in place. The above-noted requests made by the Green Coalition exceed the Project requirements of the applicable (2022) code and would correlate to increased construction costs, of which would result in higher rents for future residents. Our recommendation is that the Conditions of Approval stand, as previously approved in the Planning Commission decision held on March 10th, 2025.

Recommendation
Staff finds that Planning Commission properly considered comments and input from the Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley at the March 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting and that the Conditions of Approval as provided in Attachment 2D of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2025 as adopted by the Planning Commission are sufficient and in compliance with the 2022 California Building Code and 2022 California Green Code in effect for which approval of the 228 Unit Multi-Family Development was granted.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:

No Fiscal Impact
REVIEWED BY LEGAL:
☒ Staff report ☒ Resolution
☐ Ordinance ☐ Agreement
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1: Resolution - Denying Appeal No. 25-001 For Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 2: Letter of Appeal
Attachment 3: Applicant's Response to Appeal

20.B.

Attachment 4: Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-002_Aster Apts_SDR23- 001_Environmental
Attachment 5: Exhibit B - Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-003_Aster Apts_SDR23- 001_Entitlement
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Staff Report March 10, 2025

20.B.

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, DENYING APPEAL NO. 25-001

FOR INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2024120999) WITH MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR 23-
001), VARIANCE (VAR 23-001) TO CONSTRUCT A 228-
UNIT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMMUNITY ON 10.07

GROSS ACRE SITE, AND VARIANCE FROM THE

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2025, a letter of appeal was received from the Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley requesting that the City Council rescind the Planning Commission's approval of the Project and then approve it with added conditions to include a charging outlet of a minimum 3.5 KW at each parking spot, and clean-air kitchens using induction technology.

Appellant: Green Coalition of the San Jacinto Valley
Property Owner: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
Project Location: Southeast corner of West Stetson Ave. and South Elk Street APNs: 464-270-005; and -006
Site Area: 10.07 Gross Acres
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Newland Simpson Project”; and

20.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, an application, A Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and a Variance (VAR 23-001), was submitted for consideration and was duly filed for consideration on March 20, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-48.1 (a) provides the Planning Commission with the authority to review, impose conditions of approval which pertain to the development of the property and the operating conditions of the proposed use, and approve or deny Site Development Reviews. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of the commission decision. In approving or denying the proposed Site Development Review, the Commission must make the required "findings" pursuant to the Hemet Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the zoning code provides the Planning Commission with the authority to review and consider a variance for a modification in the development standards of the zone in which the property is located in those instances where the strict or literal enforcement of the chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of this chapter.

The Variance is subject to the required "findings" pursuant to Section 90-44.5; and WHEREAS, notice of the date, time, and location of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the Project application and related requests and documents was provided by: publication according to law in the paper of record and by mail to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held the noticed public hearing to consider the Project and take testimony from interested persons, all of

20.B.

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
whom had the opportunity to testify to support or oppose the proposed Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23-001); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Hemet has considered oral and written comments, pros and cons, as presented by the Planning Division, the applicant, and other interested parties at a public meeting held March 10, 2025, and granted approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Adopted Planning Commission Environmental Resolution No. PC 25-002 (Attachment No. 1 of Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2025), by adopting an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study as provided in Exhibit 1A and 1B of the Planning Commission Staff Report and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Adopted PC Resolution No. PC 25-003 approving Site Development Review (SDR23-001), Variance (VAR23-001) to construct a 228-unit multi-family housing community on a 10.07 gross acre site, and variance from the private open space requirements; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2025, the City gave public notice by advertising in the Press Enterprise and by mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet, prior to the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City held the noticed public hearing to consider the Project and take testimony from interested persons all of whom had the

20.B.

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
opportunity to testify to support or oppose the proposed Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the City Council found that the Planning Commission properly considered comments from the Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley at the March 10, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and that Conditions of Approval as provided in Attachment 2D of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 10, 2025 as adopted by the Planning Commission were sufficient and in compliance with the 2022 California Building Code and 2022 California Green Code currently in effect for which the 228 Unit Multi-Family Development was granted.

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

SECTION 1. CEQA FINDINGS – The City Council, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited to, the 14 City’s Local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, the recommendation of 15 the Community Development Director as provided in the Staff Report dated March 10, 2025 and all attachments and exhibits thereto, and all evidence and testimony heard at the public hearing for this appeal, the City Council hereby adopts the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC25-002 is attached hereto as and incorporated by reference as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE FINDINGS – Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-48.1(a) and Section 90-44.5 and in light of the record before it, including the staff report dated March 10, 2025, and all attachments and exhibits thereto, and all evidence and testimony heard at the public

20.B.

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
hearing for this appeal, the City Council hereby adopts the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC25-003 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL ACTION – The City Council hereby takes the following actions:

1. Uphold Planning Commission Determinations: the determinations of the Planning Commission to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.

PC 25-002 to Adopt Planning Commission Environmental Resolution (Attachment No. 1) by adopting an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study as provided in Exhibit 1A and 1B and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and

2. Deny Appeal No. 25-001: the appellant’s appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Adoption of PC Resolution No. PC 25-003 approving Site Development Review (SDR23-001), Variance (VAR23-001) to construct a 228-unit multifamily housing community on a 10.07 gross acre site, and variance from the private open space requirements.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE – This Resolution shall become effective on April 22, 2025.

20.B.

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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd Day of April, 2025. _________________________
Jackie Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

20.B.

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
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 22nd 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

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley <[email protected]> Aster-River oaks project Initial Study
4 messages
The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley <[email protected]> Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:15 AM To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Hi monique,
The Green Coalition of San jacinto Valley reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Overall, we think that this project could be a good addition to the valley, contributing much needed affordable housing. We would like to propose the following list of changes,which will further mitigate the harm to the environment, improve the quality of life of the residents, and increase the desirability of the apartments in the long term.

Solar panels will be rated to produce enough electricity for the needs of the project.

Storage batteries will be added for use during the times when there is no solar production. Batteries can be associated with each apartment or as a community power bank. Batteries also serve as a power source during PSPS events, as was experienced recently in our valley (where power was shut off for three days in certain neighborhoods.) All electric apartments: Since the technology for appliances based on heat-pump technology is already available, we propose that all appliances, including stove tops, ovens, furnaces, and water heaters will be electric. Currently, electric appliances are more expensive, but a cost/benefit analysis should include the following considerations:

A. Significantly improved indoor air quality.

B. Reduced construction costs.

C. Increased safety for residents (induction stoves have no open flames and no hot surfaces) D. Availability of grants and funding through state and federal programs.

Charging point for each parking space. Electric cars' share in the market is increasing quickly and affordable cars are becoming available. The cost of wiring and installing appropriately sized panels during construction is a fraction of the cost of doing it later.

Electric Bicycle and electric scooter infrastructure: Electric bikes and scooters are turning out to be a popular solution for the"last mile" hurtle for public transportation use. Providing a safe storage area for electric bicycles and scooters, along with outlets for charging, will significantly enhance their use. Due to the weight of the batteries, carrying these bicycles up sets of stairs is difficult. Bicycle storage cages can be placed under staircases or as part of a carport structure.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

With gratitudeShaul Rosen-Rager
Shaul Rosen-Rager
Climate Team
Green Coalition of the San Jacinto Valley
(951) 692-0685 [email protected]
--
The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley
[email protected]
call/text (951) 692-0685
No More Warehouses
Sent with Mailsuite · Unsubscribe
The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley <[email protected]> Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:27 AM Bcc: Chris Hofeditz <[email protected]>, Dawn Rizor <[email protected]>, Diane Boss <[email protected]>, Gene Hikel <[email protected]>, Harlo Lenning CCL Hemet <[email protected]>, Hillary and Frank Ross <[email protected]>, Iris Kilkthau <[email protected]>, Joan Stredler <[email protected]>, Kathy Schmitt <[email protected]>, Kathy Schmitt <[email protected]>, Katie Sisk <[email protected]>, leonard Segal <[email protected]>, Mallory Cremin <[email protected]>, Manuel Carrillo <[email protected]>, Mitzi Carver <[email protected]>, Nancy Austin <[email protected]>, Richie Locasso <[email protected]>, Shea Millan <[email protected]>, Susan De Leon <[email protected]>, Tori Russell <[email protected]>, Yvonne Sisk <[email protected]> Page 15 of 301

20.B.

[Quoted text hidden]
The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley <[email protected]> Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM To: [email protected]
Hi Monique,
Following up on our conversation at the end of the 3/10/25 planning commission meeting, I searched for the email comments and found them.

Attached is a copy of the email I sent you January 19th regarding the Aster- River Oaks Project. As you can see, a copy was also sent to Cory Babinski. As you can see, the project name is in the title of the email. These comments were excluded from the record of public comments that were made available to the planning commission, and again excluded during the meeting when you described the comments received.

Why this is important:

By failing to add our comments to the record, you have prevented the information from reaching the planning commissioners. Because of this, they did not have time to read the comments, to consider their validity, to research the topics raised, and to form an opinion.

They were faced with the information for the first time during the meeting last night, and If I was not able to be there, they would have missed it altogether. In our opinion, this is the kind of carelessness that is causing long-term harm to our community's development.

Moving forward:

We see the exclusion of our comments from the record as a serious matter. However, we believe your claim that this was done in error, and we propose a simple way to fix it. We are requesting that you inform the chairman and the planning commissioners of this error, in an email, that you explain what measures you have in place to prevent this from happening again, that you include our original emailed comments in the email, and that you include the Green Coalition ([email protected]) as a CC, so that we know it was done. We will then consider this matter closed and will not pursue any additional remedies.

Please send me a copy of your communication with the planning commission as described above, or advise me of your decision on this matter by the end of Friday 3/14/2025.

Thank youShaul Rosen-Rager
(for The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley <[email protected]> Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:15 AM
Subject: Aster-River oaks project Initial Study
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Mailsuite Reminder <[email protected]> Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 9:49 AM Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
⚠️ Your email to [email protected] has not been opened yet. Snooze for 24H, 48H or 72H (disable)

20.B.

16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
April 3, 2025
City of Hemet, Planning Department
455 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Attention: Monique Alaniz-Flejter – Community Development Director RE: Application to Appeal (Application No: APL 25-001)
Dear Ms. Alaniz-Flejter,
We are writing in response to Application Appeal (APL 25-001) that the City of Hemet (“City”) received from the Green Coalition of San Jacinto Valley on March 17, 2025. The application appeal is in response to the Planning Commission decision on the Aster Apartments, case number SDR23-001 (“Project”) as submitted by Highpointe Hemet I LLC (“Applicant”). The Applicant’s understanding is that the basis of the appeal pertains to an email sent by the Green Coalition on January 19, 2025, that was inadvertently omitted from the Project Staff Report.

Although we agree it is unfortunate that the Green Coalitions comments were not included in the Staff Report, the Green Coalition did get up and verbally share their position during the March 10, 2025 planning commission hearing. Furthermore, at the hearing, Applicant responded to the comments made by the Green Coalition, as well as various inquiries from the Commissioners that were specific to the Green Coalition’s statements.

The following is a summary of the Green Coalition’s requests from the appeal, along with the 2022 Code Requirement included in the Conditions of Approval, and the Applicant’s feedback:

EV Capabilities
Green Coalition Request:

Charging point for each parking space.

Applicable Project Requirement per 2022 Code’s:

The following electric vehicle charging requirements will be installed per full compliance with Calgreen (California Energy Code) 4.106.4.2.2.2
• 10% Installed Level 2 EV chargers (physical charger installed ready to charge on site) • 40% EV Ready Receptacles
Applicant Feedback:

This code applied to the project’s site plan will sum to a total of 50% of all parking having EV infrastructure. The Applicant has provided a total of 453 parking spaces, which will include Docusign Envelope ID: D91E5AF1-1D2B-408F-8846-459F298CA7AB

20.B.

16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
226 of the locations equipped with EV infrastructure, equating to 99% of the units having access to (1) EV charger or receptacle.

All Electric Apartments with Induction Stoves and Ovens Green Coalition Request:

All appliances to be fully electric (induction stove tops, induction ovens, furnaces, and water heaters).

Applicable Project Requirement per 2022 Code:

Gas or electric appliances are permitted.

Applicant Feedback:

We do not have a mechanical engineering firm contracted to this Project yet who we will rely on as experts to help guide these decisions. At this time, applicant has intention of units being ‘all electric’, however final selection of product specifications is not vetted until later in the design stage. Product selection is also not a criteria for the City of Hemet’s design guidelines during the Entitlement stage.

It should also be noted that this project included a submission of the qualifying Senate Bill (SB 330) application in accordance with state law. The summary of Senate Bill 330 (listed on Page 11 of 270 of the Planning Staff Report Dated March 10, 2025), limits discretionary review of housing development projects.

The Housing Laws further restrict discretionary review on market rate housing development projects. If the project complies with objective general plan, zoning and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards in effect at the time that the development application was deemed complete, the project can only be denied if the City can support the following findings:
1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health safety; and
2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid adverse impact.

As stated in the Staff Report, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element, High Density Residential (R-3) zoning designation and is consistent with applicable design guidelines. Neither additional EV requirements or all electric apartments with induction stoves and ovens addressed by Green Coalition in the appeal letter fall within the City of Hemet’s design guidelines.

In summary, the Project as shown in the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval, complies with the effective (2022) code standards in place. The above noted requests made by the Green Coalition exceed the Project requirements of the applicable (2022) code and would correlate to increased construction costs, of which would result in higher rents for future residents. Our recommendation is that the Docusign Envelope ID: D91E5AF1-1D2B-408F-8846-459F298CA7AB

20.B.

16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
Conditions of Approval stand, as previously approved in the Planning Commission decision held on March 10th, 2025.

HIGHPOINTE HEMET 1 LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: __________________________
Steve Vliss, Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: D91E5AF1-1D2B-408F-8846-459F298CA7AB

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

20.B.

City of Hemet
Planning Commission Meeting

PLANNING STAFF REPORT
Meeting: Planning Commission Special Meeting - Mar 10 2025 Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, Community Development Director TITLE:

Site Development Review (SDR23-001), Variance (VAR23-001) Highpointe Aster River Oaks Apartments: The applicant requests approval to construct a 228-unit multi-family housing community on a 10.07 gross acre site. A variance from the private open space requirement is requested.

Environmental: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program were prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 1500 et seq.).

PROJECT APPLICANT INFORMATION:

Applicant: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
Property Owner: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
Project Location Southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street APN (s): 464-270-005; and -006
Site Area: 10.07 gross acres
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment No. 1 PC Resolution Environmental
Exhibit 1A- IS/MND & Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Exhibit 1B- IS/MND Appendices Technical Reports & Variance Letter Attachment No. 2 PC Resolution Entitlement_
Exhibit 2A Architectural Plans
Exhibit 2B Landscape Plans
Exhibit 2C Preliminary Grading Plan
Exhibit 2D Draft Conditions of Approval Highpointe Aster Attachment No. 3 Aerial Map
Attachment No. 4 General Plan Map
Attachment No. 5 Zoning Map
Attachment No. 6 Letter from Applicant

20.B.

Proof of Publication
Certificate of Mailing
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt Planning Commission Environmental Resolution (Attachment No. 1) by adopting an Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) based on the findings incorporated in the Initial Study as provided in Exhibit 1A and 1B and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment No. 2) by approving Site Development Review (SDR23-001) and Variance (VAR23-001) as provided in Exhibit 2A and 2B and 2C Development Plans subject to the Conditions of Approval as provided in Exhibit 2D; and

3. Authorize staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.

REPORT SUMMARY:

On February 4, 2025 the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to allow for re-noticing of the meeting . At that meeting staff was directed to include information regarding the zoning history of the property with this report.

On February 18, 2025, the scheduled Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum.

This is a re-noticed hearing.

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL AUTHORITY:

Site Development Review
Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-48.1 (a) provides the Planning Commission with the authority to review, impose conditions of approval which pertain to the development of the property and the operating conditions of the proposed use, and approve or deny Site Development Reviews. The Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of the commission decision. In approving or denying the proposed Site Development Review, the Commission must make the required "findings" pursuant to the Hemet Municipal Code. (Attachment No. 2 Resolution)

20.B.

Variance
A Variance request has been submitted by the applicant for reasons discussed in the Analysis section of this report. The purposed of a variance is to allow for a modification in the development standards of the zone in which the property is located in those instances where the strict or literal enforcement of the chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of this chapter. The Variance is subject to the required "findings" pursuant Section 90-44.5. (Attachment No. 2 Resolution)
PROJECT SETTING:

The 10.07-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street, within the City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. The project site is in Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant as depicted on the USGS (7.5-minute) Hemet, California Quadrangle. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 464-270-005 and -006.

The property is located in the High Density Residential (18.1 - 30.0 du/ac) General Plan Land Use designation and has a zoning designation of R-3 Multi Family Residential (30 du/ac maximum). The project includes a proposed density of 22.6 dwelling units per acre on 10.07 gross acres.

Surrounding land uses include Sierra Dawn Estates to the north, Single-Family homes to the south, Pacifica Senior Living to the east, and a vacant parcel to the west.

The project aerial view, General Plan Designation, and Zoning may also be seen in the following attachments:

Aerial Map (Attachment No. 3)
General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment No. 4)
Zoning Map (Attachment No. 5)

20.B.

Zoning History
On May 22, 2012 a city-initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA 12-001) was approved, which revised the land use designation of the property, including other properties in the City from High Density Residential (18.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre) to Very High Density Residential (30.1 to 45 dwelling units per acre). This was a requirement of HCD to certify the Housing Element Code Cycle (2013-2021). Subsequently, a Zone Change (ZC 13-001) was approved to amend the Zoning Map affecting 18 parcels, including the subject site from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to R-4 (High Density Multiple Family Residential) to align with the housing element. The graphical illustration below shows the properties zoning prior to the Re-Zone. It should be noted that the located on the west side of Elk Street was at one point-in-time was zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Previous Zoning of Property (Before 2012)
Re-Zone of Property

20.B.

Furthermore, on January 18, 2019 a city initiated comprehensive General Plan Amendment (GPA18- 001) amended the land use designation of 1,003 parcels which led to the re-distribution of residential density capacity city-wide, resulting in a land use classification change on the property from Very High Density Residential (30.1 -45 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (18.0-30.0 dwelling units per acre). Subsequently, a Zone Change (ZC 18-001) which modified the zoning designation of the property from R-4 (High Density Multiple Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to align with the General Plan. The zoning map below illustrates the property in it's current zoning status of R-3. Additionally, the property to the west of Elk Street currently zoned R3 is also owned by an entity of Highpointe. There are currently no applications submitted for development at this time.

Current Zoning
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS:

Project Overview
The proposed Project consists of a 228-unit multi-family residential apartment complex, processed under a Site Development Review (SDR) process, with a Variance related to private open space and a Parcel Merger to combine two parcels into a single parcel. The development includes eight threestory apartment buildings and a one-story clubhouse and leasing office. Apartment buildings will consist of studios and one- and two-bedroom dwelling units. Project amenities include a clubhouse with a gym, community spaces, co-working, a leasing office, a swimming pool, play areas, associated parking, landscaped open space, and a dog park.

20.B.

Site Amenities
The project incorporates outdoor and indoor recreation areas for residents and guests to enjoy.

Resident amenities include a clubhouse with gym, flex work space, coffee bar, conference room, a great room, and lounge. Outdoor recreation includes a swimming pool with outdoor covered terrace and spa. Additional amenities include an outdoor courtyard area with beyond the great room with feature wall with fire pit, outdoor workout station, community barbeque grills, tot lot with play ground, pedestrian pathways with seating nodes, a dog run with dog toys, pet refuse station and indoor dog wash station.

Floor Plans
A total of eight three-story apartment buildings with proposed building height of 37-2" will consist of studios and one-bedroom and two-bedroom dwelling units ranging in size from 599 to 1,109 square feet of living area in four-unit plan types. All units will include a kitchen, living room area, stackable washer and dryer, and private open space patio. The eight three-story buildings will include two building types: Building Type A will include 36 units per building, and Building Type B will include 24 units per building. The project includes three Type A buildings and five Type B buildings.

Variance Request
The applicant is requesting a variance from Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-386(f)(1)(B) which prescribes 100 square feet of private open space for a one-bedroom, and 150 square feet of private open space for two- or more bedrooms, with an average of 125 square feet respectively. The findings for the proposed variance are described in Attachment No. 2 Resolution.

Architecture
As indicated by the applicant, construction will be a Type V wood frame with a cement plaster exterior finish and concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Consistent with the City of Hemet Design Guidelines, the architectural design is Modern and will include building facades, which are simple, square, and rectangular in nature. The elevations provide articulation through the creative use of colors, window orientation, board railing, recessed windows, patio projections, and an interplay of gabled roof and parapets. Color Scheme 1 for the buildings includes concrete tile roof in Saxony 900 Slate Stone Mountain Blend, and integral colored stucco sand finish in SW 7031 Mega Greige, SW 7622 Homburg Gray, SW 7042 Shoji White, with SW 7042 Shoji White trim. Exterior patio enclosures

20.B.

include a cementitious board material in Allura Red Rock Falls. Color Scheme 2 includes Concrete Tile Roofing in Saxony 900 Country Slate Sahara Quartz Blend, and integral colored stucco sand finish in SW 7032 Warm Stone, SW 7730 Forestwood, and SW 7042 Shoji White trim and stucco.

Exterior patio enclosures include a cementitious board material in Allura Red Rock Falls. All buildings will be garden-style walk-ups with concrete slab-on-grade foundations.

Landscaping
The proposed on-site landscaping combination of 36-inch box trees, 24-inch box trees, and 15-gallon size with various shrubs, and ground cover. Pursuant to Section 90-386, the minimum requirement is

1.75 trees per dwelling unit (at least one-third up to one-half of the trees shall be in the open areas and shall be a mix of 24-inch box and 15-gallon size. A total of 453 trees are proposed, which exceeds the minimum required. Proposed trees include Weeping Bottlebrush, Camphor Tree, Australian Willow, Crape Myrtle, Southern Magnolia, Afghan Pike, Chines Pistache, Majestic Beauty California Pepper, Mediterranean Fan Palm, Medjool Date Palm and Mexican Fan Palm. Shrubs include African Lily, Giant Blue Agave, White Striped Century Plant, Blue Glow Agave, Safari Orange Aloe, Slim Weeping Bottlebrush, Better John Bottlebrush, Flax Lilly, David's Dwarf Fortnight Lily, Golden Euonymus, Spreading Rush, Japanese Privet Column Form, Japanese Privet, Gulf Stream Heavenly Bamboo, Red Oleander, White Oleander, Newland Flax, Amazing Red New Zealand Flax, Silver Sheet Tawhiwhi, Ice Blue Yellow Wood, Fern Pine, Dancer Indian Hawthorn, Springtime Indian Hawthorn, Blue Gem Coast Rosemary, Bird of Paradise, Midnight Mexican Bush Sage, and Lavender Lady Mangave. Groundcovers include Carpet Bugle, Oo-La-La-Bougainvillea, Breeze Mat Rush, Prostrate Rosemary, New Gold Lantana, and Flower Carpet Pink Supreme Groundcover Rose.

Common Open Space Amenities
The project incorporates 61,291 square feet of outdoor and indoor recreation areas for residents and guests to enjoy. Resident amenities include a clubhouse with gym, flex work space, coffee bar, conference room, a great room, and lounge. Outdoor recreation includes a swimming pool with outdoor covered terrace and spa. Additional amenities include an outdoor courtyard area with beyond the great room with feature wall with fire pit, outdoor workout station, community barbeque grills, totlot with play ground, landscaped pedestrian pathways with seating nodes, a dog run, pet refuse station and indoor dog wash station.

Site Walls & Fencing
Perimeter fencing includes 6'-8" high combination of tubular steel combined with block pilasters with wall caps along Stetson Avenue and Elk Street. Six-foot ornamental steel double swing gates with KNOX auto key switch will be installed at gate entrances for emergency apparatus. Construction of new 6' perimeter solid block masonry wall is proposed along the south and east boundary of the site adjacent to both single-family and senior living homes. A five-foot-high tubular fence with gates shall be installed around the swimming pool with appropriate hardware. Play areas and Dog run areas shall have 42” high tubular fence with self-closing swing gates. An 8' identification monument sign is proposed at the intersection of West Stetson and South Elk Street, and monument sign proposed at the main entry.

20.B.

Drainage
The developed condition stormwater runoff flows from the apartments drain southwest to a bioretention basin located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater runoff from the club house area drains to a separate bioretention basin located just northwest of the project main entrance. The bioretention basins drain, via metered sub-drains, to an existing storm drain catch basin at the southeast corner of the intersection of Stetson Avenue and Elk Street. Flows to the catch basin will be limited in project design, through storm routing, to the peak 100-year flow rate. The catch basin is 7 feet wide and captures runoff from the aforementioned 5.4 acres onsite and a portion of the south half of Stetson Avenue. The catch basin discharges to the Stetson Channel via a 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe storm drain. Flows in excess of the bioretention basin metered outlet capacity surface flow through an under sidewalk drain to Elk Street which honors the natural drainage pattern of the south half of the project site.

Circulation & Road Improvements
Vehicular access to the site will be served from a 48-foot wide driveway on South Elk Street. South Elk Street is a Collector roadway, currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a 66- foot right-of-way width, consistent with the 66- to 74-foot width in Table 4.3 of the General Plan Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.

Secondary emergency access will be served from West Stetson Avenue. Stetson Avenue is a Four Lane Major in the General Plan Circulation Element. It is currently constructed as a four-lane divided roadway with an 88-foot right-of-way width or 44-half width right-of-way and an additional 6-foot easement providing 50, which is consistent with the 98- to 104-foot width in Table 4.3 of the General Plan Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.

Traffic Analysis
In evaluating environmental impacts, Level of Service (LOS) is no longer a threshold to evaluate CEQA impacts. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed by the Governor in 2013, is changing the way transportation impacts are identified. Specifically, the legislation has directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to look at different metrics for identifying transportation as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact. The Final Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines were released in December 2018 and identified vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred metric moving forward. The City adopted these standards in 2023 through General Plan Amendment 21-003. To aid in determining if the project is in a Low VMT Area, the online Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Tool was utilized. The tool was run using both the “Below City Baseline” and “Below City Future Buildout” thresholds each for the baseline year 2028. In both cases, the project site was found to be within low VMT generating Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs).

Per the City Guidelines, any project located in a low VMT-generating TAZ is presumed to have less than significant impact. Therefore, a VMT analysis for the proposed project is not necessary.

Furthermore, a traffic study has been prepared to meet the traffic study requirements for the City of Hemet and assesses the forecast traffic operations associated with the proposed project and its impact on the local street network. The Circulation Element of the City General Plan has established the LOS “D” or better as acceptable LOS during peak hour traffic for all signalized intersections within the designated street system within the City of Hemet.

20.B.

The following four (4) intersections in the vicinity of the project site have been included in the level of service (LOS) analysis. The study intersection scenarios were analyzed for existing traffic conditions, opening year and project traffic conditions, and opening year cumulative with project conditions.

1. South Elk Street/West Stetson Avenue

2. South Palm Avenue/West Stetson Avenue

3. South Lyon Avenue/West Stetson Avenue

4. South Elk Street/Project Driveway
Based on the ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021), the proposed project is projected to generate 1,537 daily trips, 91 AM peak hour trips, and 116 PM peak hour trips. Traffic operations are evaluated for the following time periods:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour occurring between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM • Weekday PM Peak Hour occurring between 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM As illustrated below, the Opening Year Cumulative Traffic Conditions for the project is expected to operate an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours, and the three existing intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours.

Line of Sight Study
The traffic study also included a sight distance analysis for the proposed Project Driveway at South Elk Street for “corner sight distance” The corner sight distance for left turns is shown to have a limited use area of 164 feet in length. The study recommends restriction on the installation of any permanent obstructions over a height of 30 inches within the limited use area. A condition of approval will require the landscape and plan to be updated in accordance with the line of site study prepared by TJW Engineering Inc, dated June 6, 2024 (Appendix O) of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Condition No. 22).

20.B.

Lighting
Lighting shall be installed and shielded to confine direct rays of artificial light within the boundaries of the parking lots. Light standards as required by code shall not exceed 25 feet in height and shall be located so as not to interfere with parking lot landscaping. Parking lot lighting may be required to be shut off after certain hours, depending upon the use and proximity to residential developments.

Parking lot lighting and public common area lighting shall be shielded or designed to direct the lighting downward. Light sources shall not be located in required buffer areas, except those required to illuminate pedestrian walkways. All lighting shall be adjusted so that all lighting is contained within the boundaries of the site.

Parking
In accordance with the Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1423(A)5 Dwelling, multiple-family units all spaces shall be covered in a garage or carport, plus 1 uncovered space for each 5 dwelling units for visitors. The total number of required parking spaces is 407 for residential units and 46 guest spaces.

The applicant has provided a total of 453 parking spaces, which includes 58 one-car garage spaces with remote, 350 carports, and 46 uncovered spaces for guests and leasing office guests. The parking required has been met.

Tribal Consultation
The City has completed the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation (see Appendix C2, Tribal Consultation). On April 2, 2024, the City provided written notices to interested California Native American tribes on the City’s list consistent with AB 52. The Agua Band of Caliente Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseño requested to consult under AB 52. Through the consultation process, mitigation measures were prepared for inclusion with this project (Exhibit 2D).

PROPOSED FINDINGS:

20.B.

The Findings for the project are as provided in Attachment No. 2 PC Resolution Entitlement.

Furthermore, the project includes submission of a qualifying Senate Bill (SB 330) application in accordance with state law as further described below.

Summary of Senate Bill 330
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, more commonly referred to as Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”) was signed into law on October 9, 2019. SB 330 creates new state laws directing how local governments may regulate housing production, preservation and planning. It amended the State Housing Accountability Act, Permit Streamlining Act and Planning and Zoning Law all under Title 7 of the California Government Code. The bill (and subsequent amendments, collectively, the “Housing Laws”) established a ten (10) year statewide housing emergency beginning January 1, 2020 until January 1, 2030. SB 330 aims to increase certainty in the development process, speed the review of new housing development projects, preserve existing affordable housing, encourage the development of new housing units particularly affordable ones, and prevent certain zoning actions that reduce the availability of housing. The Housing Laws establish concrete project processing timelines; impose streamlining requirements; limit discretionary review of housing development projects; and prohibit plan level downzoning and moratoriums on housing.

Discretionary Review
The Housing Laws further restrict discretionary review on market rate housing development projects.

If the project complies with objective general plan, zoning and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards in effect at the time that the development application was deemed complete, the project can only be denied if the City can support the following findings:
1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health safety; and
2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid adverse impact.

In this instance, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element, and the High Density Residential (R-3) zoning designation. Further, it is consistent with applicable design guidelines. The Project does not comply with the open space per unit requirement in the multi-family zoning ordinance. However, the City has found sufficient grounds to grant a variance, excusing the applicant from strict compliance with this provision. (Appendix E and Attachment No. 2 PC Resolution Entitlement). Further, a minor variation from this requirement would not meet the above criteria to disapprove the Project, as it would not have an adverse impact on public health. Additionally, the parties have shown that the discrepancy can be mitigated as described in the variance findings.

CEQA REVIEW:

The City of Hemet has determined the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment with incorporation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures (as listed in the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The public review period for the IS/MND occurred from December 19, 2024 and ended on January 20, 2025. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) was prepared and identified all mitigation measures required for the project.

20.B.

The City of Hemet intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project described above.

This notice is made pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; it has determined that this Project, with incorporated mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact upon the environment. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this Project on the environment are included in the Project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (MMRP) and will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project. In accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 (g)(5), the project site IS NOT listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project IS NOT a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance as designated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. The project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation.

A copy of the Environmental Determination, accompanied by technical appendices can be found on the link provided below:
https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED:

Property owners located within 500-foot radius of the project site and interested parties were notified of the public hearing on December 19, 2024 with a 10-day hearing notice in addition to a public notice in the Press Enterprise. On January 21, 2025 the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to the February 4, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the meeting to allow for re-noticing.

On February 18, 2025 the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum, thus necessitating re-noticing of this project.

On February 28, 2025 the City gave public notice by advertising in the Press Enterprise and by mailing to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the property prior to the holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning Commission; and To date, staff one letter from Eastern Municipal Water District with instructions for scheduling a due diligence meeting prior to submitting improvement plans for Plan Check, and phone call from property owner who resides at 1201 Moonstone Street. Concerns with regard to privacy, noise and congestion were expressed. Staff has invited the property owner to view the plans at the front counter with a staff member from the Planning Division prior to the public hearing. A link to the Planning Commission Agenda Staff Report for this project was also emailed to the property owner on January 31, 2025.

Since, then the property owner has met with city staff at the front counter to view and discuss the plans.

INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE:

City of Hemet General Plan
City of Hemet Zoning Ordinance
City of Hemet Multiple Family Residential Design Guidelines

20.B.

City of Hemet Multiple Family Residential Objective Design Standards STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

GOAL ONE: QUALITY OF LIFE:

To ensure that Hemet is safe, clean, attractive and comfortable for all who live, work, and visit.

Objective 1: Enhance the visual appearance of the community to make it attractive by utilizing vacant land to construct multi-family residential dwelling units.

20.B.

Planning Commission Environmental Resolution No. 2025-XXX SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 – Highpointe Hemet I LLC

1 3
2 3
4 CITY OF HEMET
5 Hemet, California
6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
8 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
9 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
11 THE CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA APPROVING SITE
12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-001 AND VARIANCE 23-001
13 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHPOINTE ASTER
14 OAKS 228-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
15 APARTMENT COMPLEX AND VARIANCE RELATED
16 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON 10.01 GROSS ACRES,
17 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST
18 STETSON AVENUE AND SOUTH ELK STREET.
19 20 WHEREAS, an application for Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and 21 Variance (VAR 23-001) was duly filed for consideration by:
22 23 Applicant: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
24 Property Owner: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
25 Project Location: Southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk 26 Street.
27 APN: 464-270-005; and 006
28 Lot Area: 10.01 Gross Acres
29 30 WHEREAS, A Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23- 31 001) was submitted for consideration on March 20, 2023; and 32 33 WHEREAS, the proposed SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 is considered a “project” 34 as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000 35 et seq. (“CEQA”); and
36 37 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality 38 Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (“IS”) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) have 39 been prepared to analyze the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and 40 41 WHEREAS, between December 19, 2024 and January 21, 2025, the 30-day 42 public review period for the draft IS/MND took effect, which was publicly noticed by a 43 publication in a newspaper of general circulation, and notice to owners and occupants in 44 accordance with CEQA guidelines Section 15073, related agencies and government 45 agencies; and

20.B.

Planning Commission Environmental Resolution No. 2025-XXX SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 – Highpointe Hemet I LLC

1 2 WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission 3 continued the public hearing to February 4, 2025 to allow the applicant additional time to 4 review draft conditions of approval;
5 6 WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission 7 continued the public hearing to February 18, 2025 to allow the applicant additional time 8 to prepare and redistribute the public hearing notice due to an error in processing; 9 10 WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission was 11 cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
12 13 WHEREAS, on February 28, 2025 the City gave public notice by advertising in 14 the Press Enterprise and by mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of 15 the holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning 16 Commission; and
17 18 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission held the 19 continued public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in 20 support of, or opposition to the proposed Site Development Review SDR 23-001 for 21 228-Unit Multi-Family Development and Variance VAR 23-001 from the private open 22 space requirements outlined in Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-386(f)(1)(B) as 23 provided in the findings Section 3 of this resolution at which the Planning Commission 24 considered the proposed Site Development Review and Variance; and approved the 25 Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23-001) subject to 26 conditions of approval; and
27 28 WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate 29 and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and 30 represents the independent judgment of the City; and 31 32 WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA 33 Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the draft 34 IS/MND which would require re-circulation; and
35 36 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hemet does 37 Resolve, Determine, Find and Order as follows:
38 39 SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
40 41 The Planning Commission, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited 42 to the City’s local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, the proposed 43 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and all documents incorporated by reference 44 therein, any comments received and responses provided, the Mitigation Monitoring 45 Program, and other substantial evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code

20.B.

Planning Commission Environmental Resolution No. 2025-XXX SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 – Highpointe Hemet I LLC

1 §21080(e) and §21082.2 within the record and/or provided at the public hearing, hereby 2 finds and determines as follows:
3 4 1. Review Period of MND: That the City has provided the public review period for 5 the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the duration required under CEQA 6 Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15105.
7 8 2. Compliance with Law: That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation 9 Monitoring program were prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with 10 the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 11 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 12 1500 et seq.), and the local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance 13 adopted by the City of Hemet.
14 15 3. Independent Judgment: That the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the 16 Independent judgment and analysis of the City.
17 18 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program: That the Mitigation Monitoring Program is 19 designed to ensure compliance during project implementation in that changes to 20 the project and/or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project 21 and are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other 22 measures as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 23 24 5. No Significant Effect: That revisions made to the project plans agreed to by the 25 applicant and mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval on the 26 project, avoid or mitigate any potential significant effects on the environment 27 identified in the Initial Study to a point below the threshold of significance. 28 Furthermore, after taking into consideration the revisions to the project and the 29 mitigation measures imposed, the Planning Commission finds that there is no 30 substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, from which it could be fairly 31 argued that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 32 Therefore, the Planning Commission concludes that the project will not have a 33 significant effect on the environment.
34 35 Based on the foregoing findings, and on substantial evidence in the whole of the record, 36 the Planning Commission hereby takes the following actions:
37 38 1. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Planning Commission adopts the 39 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, as shown in Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B, for 40 Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23-001). 41 42 2. Adopt Mitigation Monitoring Plan: The Planning Commission adopts the 43 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, as 44 shown in Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 1B.
45 46 3. Notice of Determination: The Planning Commission, in compliance with Public 47 Resources Code §21152 and CEQA Guidelines §15094, directs the Community

20.B.

Planning Commission Environmental Resolution No. 2025-XXX SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 – Highpointe Hemet I LLC

1 Development Director to prepare a Notice of Determination concerning 2 certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and within five (5) days 3 of project approval, file the Notice with the Riverside County Clerk for posting. 4 5 4. Location: The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, all documents referenced in 6 the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the record of proceedings on which 7 the Planning Commission’s decision is based are located at City of Hemet City 8 Hall at 445 E Florida Avenue, Hemet, California, 92543, and the custodian of 9 record of proceedings is the City of Hemet City Clerk. 10 11 SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
12 13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of March, 2025 by the 14 following vote:
15 16 AYES:
17 NOES:
18 ABSTAIN:
19 ABSENT:
20 21 Jacob Beamesderfer, Chair
22 Hemet Planning Commission
23 ATTEST:
24 25
26 ________________________________
27 Corina Hernandez, Records Secretary
28 Hemet Planning Commission

20.B.

ASTER – RIVER OAKS

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Site Development Permit 23-001
Variance 23-001
Environmental Assessment 22-003
December 2024
Lead Agency:

CITY OF HEMET
445 East Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Monique Alaniz-Flejter, AICP, Community Development Director (951) 765-2370
Applicant:

Highpointe Hemet I, LLC
16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92615
Consultant:

McKenna Lanier Group, Inc.
30650 Rancho California Road
Suite D406-166
Temecula, CA 92591

20.B.

20.B.

Page i
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................i II. LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................ii III. LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................ii IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ....................................................... 1

1. Name of Proponent........................................................................................ 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address .................................................................. 1

3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent ................................................ 1

4. Name of Proposal .......................................................................................... 1

5. Public Review Period..................................................................................... 1

6. Case No......................................................................................................... 1

7. Project Location ............................................................................................. 1

8. General Plan Designation.............................................................................. 1

9. Zoning Designation........................................................................................ 2

10. Description of the Site and Project:................................................................ 2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................... 2 Project Description......................................................................................... 3 Construction Characteristics .......................................................................... 4 Off-Site Improvements................................................................................... 6

11. California Native American Tribes: ................................................................ 6

12. Public Agency Approval................................................................................. 7

13. Appendices.................................................................................................... 7

14. Acronyms....................................................................................................... 8 V. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED....................... 13 VI. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 13 VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................... 14 VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS ............................................. 16 I. AESTHETICS. ............................................................................................. 16 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................. 20 III. AIR QUALITY. .............................................................................................. 22 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................ 36 VI. ENERGY...................................................................................................... 38 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................... 45 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................. 55 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ............................................. 62 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ........................................................ 67 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ...................................................................... 73 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................... 75 XIII. NOISE.......................................................................................................... 76 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. .................................................................... 92 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES..................................................................................... 93 XVI. RECREATION.............................................................................................. 96 XVII. TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................... 96 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................. 101 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS......................................................... 104 XX. WILDFIRE.................................................................................................. 109 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:........................................... 111 IX. CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST: .................................................................. 113 X. MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) ..... MM - 1

20.B.

Page ii
II. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Vicinity Map................................................................................. …….10 Figure 2 Aerial.................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3 Site Plan ………………………………………………………………………………..12
Figure 4 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels....................................................................... 77 Figure 5 Land Use Compatability for Community Noise Environments............................ 82 Figure 6 Land Use Compatibility Standards for Exterior and Interior Noise ..................... 83 III. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Surrounding Uses & Setting .................................................................................. 3 Table 2 Product Information............................................................................................... 4 Table 3 Construction Phasing ............................................................................................ 5 Table 4 Construction Equipment ........................................................................................ 5 Table 5 Regional Significance - Construction Emissions ................................................. 26 Table 6 Localized Significance – Construction ................................................................ 27 Table 7 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ............... 27 Table 8 Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions ............................. 28 Table 9 Project Construction Power and Electricity Usage .............................................. 39 Table 10 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimate ....................................... 40 Table 11 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates........................................... 41 Table 12 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks) and Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)......................... 42 Table 13 Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption ............................................. 43 Table 14 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ................ 43 Table 15 2019 Uniform Building Code – Based Seismic Design Parameters ................. 48 Table 16 Uniform Building Code Table 18-1 .................................................................... 52 Table 17 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................... 56 Table 18 Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......... 57 Table 19 Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison ............................................................................................................ 58 Table 20 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures ............. 62 Table 21 Project Consistency with SCAG 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS.................................... 62 Table 22 Land Use & Setting ........................................................................................... 73 Table 23 Changes in Noise Levels .................................................................................. 78 Table 24 Noise Level Standards for Stationary Noise Standard ...................................... 83 Table 25 Short-Term Noise Measurement Data............................................................... 85 Table 26 Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways ............. 86 Table 27 Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL).......................................................... 88 Table 28 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................... 89 Table 29 Construction Noise Levels South Property Line ............................................... 90 Table 30 Potential Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ................................. 91 Table 31 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................... 92 Table 32 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary ............. 107

20.B.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Name of Proponent: Highpointe Hemet I LLC

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Hemet
Monique Alaniz-Flejter, AICP,
Community Development Director
445 East Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
(951) 765-2370
[email protected]

3. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent: Highpointe Hemet I LLC Cory Babinski
Owner Representative
16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
(805) 722-5884
[email protected]

4. Name of Proposal: Aster – River Oaks

5. Public Review Period: Begins on December 19, 2024, and & ends at 5:00 pm on January 20,
2025

6. Case No. SDR 23-001/VAR 23-001/EA 22-
003

7. Project Location:

The 10.07-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street, within the City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. The project site is in Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant as depicted on the USGS (7.5-minute) Hemet, California Quadrangle. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 464-270-005 and -006.

8. General Plan Designation – HDR – High-Density Residential (18.1 – 30.0 du/ac) The City’s General Plan 2030 states that the HDR-High Density Residential designation provides for attached multiple-family units. HDR areas are typically located near commercial nodes, school sites, parks, and other activity centers. Typical housing types include townhomes at the low end of the density range and stacked units at the high end of the density range.1 The project proposes to provide attached multiple-family units at

22.6 du/ac.
1 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 2 – Land Use Element, page 2-20.

20.B.

9. Zoning Designation – R-3 – Multiple Family Residential (30 du/ac max) Per Chapter 90 of the Municipal Code – Zoning, the purpose of the Multiple Family zones is as follows:
(a) The multiple-family zones provide areas for low-medium to very high density residential uses with a variety of housing types where adequate public facilities and services exist with the capacity to serve development. Commonly maintained onsite recreational facilities and open spaces are typically required to serve the more concentrated residential population.
(b) The multiple-family zones implement the low-medium density to very high density residential designations of the general plan. The designations provide for multiplefamily housing with allowable densities that range from five to 45 dwelling units per acre.2
The development of the Aster – River Oaks Project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan designations. The project is a multiple-family housing project consistent with the General Plan designation and policies of increasing the housing supply in the community.

10. Description of the Site and Project:

Environmental Setting
The project area is located in western Riverside County within an urban area with an elevation of 1,527 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (Conceptual Grading Plan, Appendix B). Modern climate conditions within the project area consist of a Mediterranean climate, with an average rainfall of nine to ten inches per year, generally from January through March.

The project area is in the San Jacinto Valley, surrounded by the Santa Rosa Hills and the San Jacinto Mountains. The San Jacinto River is formed at the western base of the San Jacinto Mountains; a section passes near the Santa Rosa Summit leading to Lake Hemet. Although Hemet is dry with low precipitation, the San Jacinto River provided an invaluable resource that facilitated prehistoric occupation and encouraged the development of the City of Hemet. Geologically, the project lies near the eastern edge of the Perris block of the Peninsular Ranges batholith. The active San Jacinto fault zone lies approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project.3 There are three soil types on the property: San Emigdio fine sandy loam, San Emigdio fine sandy loam, deep, and Metz loamy fine sand, sandy loam substratum.4 The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. During the biological survey conducted on September 21, 2023, vegetation within the project area consisted of a dense layer of puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris). The site had been graded or disked 2 Municipal Code – Chapter 90 – Zoning, Article XIII – Multiple-Family – Section 90-381 – Purposes. 3 Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023, page

1.0-1 (Appendix I). 4
Ibid.

20.B.

over time. Plant species found along in more disturbed areas and interspersed in the puncture vine cover include short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) slender wild oats (Avena barbata), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), and mare's tail (Erigeron canadensis), based on the weedy species mix, the property is an annual non-native grassland (Upper Mustards or Star-thistle Fields, Sawyer et. al 2008).5
Surrounding Uses & Setting
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site Vacant Land HDR – High-Density Residential
R-3 – Multi-Family
Residential;
North
Single Family Residential
(Mobile Homes)
(across W Stetson Avenue)
LMDR – Low Medium Density
Residential
TR-20 – Independent Mobile
Home Subdivision
South Single Family Residential LDR – Low-Density Residential R-3 – Multiple- Family Residential
East Multiple-Family Residential
Pacifica Senior Living
HDR – High-Density
Residential
R-1-5 – Single-Family
Residential
West Vacant
(across S Elk Street)
HDR – High-Density
Residential
R-3 – Multiple-Family
Residential
Table 1 Surrounding Uses & Setting
Drainage
The project site lies within the Santa Ana Watershed – San Jacinto Valley Sub-Region of Riverside County. The site slopes to the southwest at approximately 0.7 percent, surrounded by existing development and drainage facilities. The project site resides in Flood Zone X of FIRM Map 06065C2105G. Flood Zone X has a 1% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard.

Project Description
The project is the development of 10.07 vacant gross acres. It includes a Site Development Review to develop a 228-unit, multiple-family housing project, a Variance related to private open space, and a Parcel Merger to combine the two parcels into a single parcel.

Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) (Appendices A, B, C & D) The development includes eight three-story apartment buildings up to 37.17 feet in height and a one-story clubhouse and leasing office up to 19 feet in height. The project will take access off South Elk Street. Project amenities include a clubhouse with gym, community spaces, co-working, leasing office, swimming pool, play areas, associated parking (uncovered, covered, and garages), landscaped open space, and a dog park.

The apartment buildings will consist of studios and one- and two-bedroom dwelling units ranging in size from 599 to 1,109 square feet of living area in four-unit plan types (as shown in Table 2 below). The eight three-story buildings will include two building types:
5 The Aster Apartment Complex General Biological Assessment, Jurisdictional Determination and Consistency Analysis Report, prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc., December 8, 2023, page 5.

Type text here

20.B.

Building Type A will include 36 units per building, and Building Type B will include 24 units per building. The project includes three Type A buildings and five Type B buildings.

Product Information
Building Type Building Size # Units Unit Area Unit Design Plan PS-A 15 599 sq. ft. Studio
Plan P1-A 84 726 sq. ft. 1 Bedroom
1 Bathroom
Plan P2-A 96 1,109 sq. ft. 2 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
Plan P2-B 33 1.050 sq. ft. 2 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
Table 2 Product Information
Consistent with the City of Hemet Design Guidelines, the architectural design is Modern.

It will include façades that are well articulated with vertical massing, varied-height parapet walls, and flat roof projections. The composition is clean and proportionate, with vertical massing breaks to create proper scale. The elevations are further enhanced by an earthtone color palette and balcony projections, providing shadow and visual interest.

The site will have a spacious feel with open landscaped areas and surface parking.

The project features landscaped areas throughout the site, meeting the water efficiency requirements while providing an attractive pallet. Fencing will be a combination of masonry walls of six feet around the perimeter, with tubular view fencing along the South Elk Street frontage.

Variance (VAR 23-0001) (Appendix E)
A variance is requested to remove the required open space requirement per unit type and lower the average private open space requirement to 100 square feet. Per the project’s Variance Justification (Appendix E),
Parcel Merger (EA 22-003) (Appendix F)
A parcel merger is proposed to merge parcels 3 and 4 of Tract Map 21250-1 into a single parcel for the proposed site development.

Construction Characteristics
The applicant proposes to commence construction in January 2026, with construction taking approximately eighteen months to complete and the project becoming operational in July 2027. The grading will generally include 10,600 cubic yards of cut with 6,800 cubic yards of fill. The cut and fill volumes are expected to balance due to the amount of anticipated soil shrinkage identified in the project’s Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix J). As such, no import or export of soil is anticipated.

The following grading considerations or design features will be applied to the project’s grading permit as conditions of approval.

20.B.

The contractors, during all construction phases, shall ensure the following:
• Grading will occur Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June 1 through September 30, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from October 1 through May 31, and between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays year-round. • Construction (excluding grading) will occur during the allowable times as described in Section 30-32[1.] (43) of the City’s Municipal Code. • During construction, the contractor will ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise-attenuating devices. Equipment with a sound power level of 80 dB or higher must be equipped with mufflers. • The contractor will locate equipment staging areas as far as possible, away from the sensitive receptors.
• Idling equipment will be turned off when not in use.
• Equipment will be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

Construction Phasing
Length of Phase (days)
Phase Name Phase 1
Site Preparation 15
Grading 30
Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 30
Total 395
Table 3 Construction Phasing
Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Grader 1
Rubber Tired Dozer 2 1
Earthmover/Tractor/
Backhoe/Loader 3 2 3
Excavator 2
Scraper 2
Man Lift 3
Crane 1
Generator Sets 1
Welder/Torch 1
Pavers 2
Compactor 2
Rollers 2
Air Compressors 1
Table 4 Construction Equipment

20.B.

Off-Site Improvements
Off-site improvements include the following list.

1. The undergrounding of lower communication lines on the utility poles on West Stetson Avenue.

2. A streetlight will be relocated on West Stetson Avenue for the secondary site access lane; trenching and patching will occur at this location.

3. Utility work will include sewer laterals, water lateral connection for fire water, and domestic water services, and primary conduit taps. Asphalt patching will occur at these locations.

11.California Native American Tribes:

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note:

Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Pursuant to AB 52 (Gatto, 2014), the City sent letters of the formal notification of determination that the project application was complete and that the City opened the consultation process, according to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, on April 2, 2024.

The City sent a 30-day notification letter to the following tribes. • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

20.B.

The following tribes requested consultation with the City:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Through the consultation process, mitigation measures were prepared for inclusion in this environmental analysis, as noted in Sections V – Cultural Resources and XVIII – Tribal Cultural Resources.

12.Public Agency Approval:

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
A. None

13.Appendices:

Found as Separate Documents and Incorporated by Reference into this IS/MND Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150
A. Architectural Plans
B. Conceptual Grading Plan
C. Concept Landscape & Fence and Wall Plans
D. Lighting Plans
E. Variance Justification
F. Parcel Merger
G. Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024
H. The Aster Apartment Complex General Biological Assessment, Jurisdictional Determination and Consistency Analysis Report, prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc., December 8, 2023
I. Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023
J. Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed River Oaks Ranch Project Multi-Family Residential Development West Stetson Avenue and Elk Street Hemet, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., April 10, 2024, and Addendum Report #1 dated August 16, 2024
K. Paleontological Assessment for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023
L. Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 17, 2023, Revised April 30, 2024, and June 29, 2024
M. Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC, October 23, 2024

20.B.

N. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River Oaks Ranch Residential Development Southeast of Lyon Avenue and Stetson Avenue, Hemet, Riverside County, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., January 14, 2022 O. SEC Stetson Avenue & Elk Street Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc., June 6, 2024
P. SEC Stetson Avenue and Elk Street VMT Screening, City of Hemet Memo, prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc., June 6, 2024
Q. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 14, 2023, Revised July 15, 2024
R. Eastern Municipal Water District Will Serve Letter dated July 24, 2023 S. City of Hemet Public Works Department Will Serve Letter dated August 3, 2023

14. Acronyms:

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC - Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
BMP - Best Management Practice
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMD - California Integrated Waste Management District CMP - Congestion Management Plan
CUP - Conditional Use Permit
DOSH - Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration DP - Development Plan
DTSC - Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR - Department of Water Resources
EMWD - Eastern Municipal Water District
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GIS - Geographic Information System
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GP - General Plan
GPU - General Plan Update
HCM - Highway Capacity Manual
HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan
HUSD - Hemet Unified School District
IS - Initial Study
LHMWD - Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID - Low Impact Development
LOS - Level of Service
LST - Localized Significance Threshold
MM - Mitigation Measure
MSCP - Multiple Species Conservation Plan
MSHCP - Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MWD - Metropolitan Water District

20.B.

NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OEM - Office of Emergency Services
OSHA - Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State
PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report
PW - Public Works
PWQMP - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
RCEH - Riverside County Environmental Health
RCFCWCD - Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District RCP - Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCTC - Riverside County Transportation Commission
RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTA - Riverside Transit Agency
RTP - Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE - Southern California Edison
SCH - State Clearinghouse
SEIR - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SJUSD - San Jacinto Unified School District
SKR HCP - Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB - State Water Resources Control Board
SWQMP - Storm Water Quality Management Plan
UBC - Uniform Building Code
USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
WRCOG - Western Riverside Council of Governments

20.B.

Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity Map

20.B.

Figure 2 – Aerial
Figure 1 - Aerial

20.B.

Figure 3 – Site Plan

20.B.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture &
Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology &
Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population & Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities &
Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance VI. DETERMINATION
Based on this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name For

12.16.2024
Monique Alaniz-Flejter

20.B.

VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or another CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning

20.B.

ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

20.B.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS
Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 21099 –
Modernization of Transportation Analysis
for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects –
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. Scenic vistas in Hemet include views of the San Jacinto Mountains, the San Bernardino National Forest and Mountains, and the San Gabriel Mountains. The San Jacinto Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest and Mountains are visible from the project site.

These scenic vistas are typically viewed from publicly accessible areas, including parks and roadways. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. The project site is being developed with apartment buildings with a maximum height of thirty-seven feet, two inches, and a front setback from Stetson Avenue between thirty-six feet to thirty-nine feet, which provides opportunities for public viewing of the San Jacinto Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest and Mountains. General Plan 2030 Policy OS-2.26 uses the development review process to conserve view corridors, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, and other landscape features, and Program OS-P-107 requires project reviews to consider impacts on view corridors of mountains, rock outcroppings, and other visual resources.
6 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 7 – Open Space and Conservation Element, page 7-36. 7 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 4 – Aesthetics, page 4.1-4.

20.B.

Through the Site Development Review process, the City ensures the implementation of the General Plan 2030 policies and programs, reducing any impacts associated with the development. Planning and Engineering have reviewed the project and have determined it to have a less than significant level, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on scenic vistas.
b) No impact. State scenic highways are designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and are recognized as highways that maintain sensitive landscapes or valuable scenic resources within the highway viewshed. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Program Mapping System, no officially designated State Scenic Highways are within the project area.8
The project is not within a state scenic highway, nor does it impact a state scenic highway resource. The project will not impact a state scenic highway directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
c) Less than significant. The project is in an urban area along a Major Arterial, West Stetson Avenue. The project will not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Construction Impacts
The City does not have specific regulations to mitigate visual construction impacts.

However, construction-related impacts would be short-term and temporary as construction activity would not be continuous. Visual impacts associated with construction activities would include exposed pads and staging areas for grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located on the development site during various stages of construction, within materials storage areas, or associated with construction debris piles on site. Exposed trenches, roadway bedding, spoils/debris piles, and steel plates could be visible during street and utility infrastructure improvements. These could degrade the development site’s existing visual character, quality, and surroundings during the construction phase.

The Permittee/Owner will ensure that the pre-construction and/or construction documents include language that all construction contractors will strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. The construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site. In addition, the documents shall include language requiring that construction vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and dust prior to leaving the development site, and streets surrounding the development site shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris. The City Building Division will ensure the language appears on the documents. The City Engineer/Building Inspectors will ensure requirements are maintained in the field. 8 CalTrans Scenic Highways, accessed March 6, 2024, website – https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

20.B.

Operational Impacts
The project site is in an urbanized area, is multiple-family zoned, and is appropriate and permitted for the project location. The property is subject to compliance with the general development and design standards and parameters outlined in Chapter 90 – Zoning and Multi-Family Design Guidelines.9 The development and design standards and parameters address development factors that would influence the visual character/quality of the development site and its surroundings. Namely, the general development standards address parcel size and coverage, density and intensity, setbacks, and building height. The design standards address site planning (i.e., site character, land use buffering, building placement, trash/loading/storage areas, and utility and mechanical equipment), parking (i.e., project entry), and architectural design (i.e., architectural style, design consistency, form/mass, roofs, building materials, and colors).

The project has been subject to compliance with general property development and use standards outlined in Chapter 90 – Zoning. These standards are intended to ensure that all development produces an environment of desirable character that is harmonious with current and future development and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties.

Furthermore, the City of Hemet is in a valley with the San Jacinto Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest and hillsides surrounding the city in all directions. The panoramic views shall remain visible and unobstructed from view with the implementation of the project. Additionally, the proposed development has been reviewed for aesthetics in addition to development requirements including landscaping and architecture, this along with the existing vistas shall preserve and enhance the immediate and surrounding vistas.

The project will not conflict with appropriate zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project will implement multiple-family zoning, which permits multiplefamily buildings as a matter of right. Further, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings because the Project proposes to construct apartment buildings that would be consistent with the R-3 – Multiple Family Residential Zone and will be developed in a manner that is consistent with the City’s landscape, lighting, and architectural standards for similar uses, and therefore would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Under the R-3 – Multiple Family Residential Zoning, the Project can have an apartment building as high as 45 feet. The proposed Project includes a building at approximately thirty-seven feet, two inches in height. The R-3 – Multiple Family Residential Zone also establishes a twenty-five-foot front setback. The proposed Project exceeds the required setback by implementing thirty-six feet to thirty-nine feet front setback. The Project is consistent with the City’s land use, zoning, and underlying regulations. As such, no long-term visual impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the proposed Project. Any impacts on the visual character or quality of public views of the site would be less than significant. The development implements the vision of the City of Hemet 2030 General Plan for the subject property.
9 Municipal Code – Chapter 90 – Zoning, Article XIII – Multiple-Family Zones

20.B.

As previously stated, the project includes a Site Development Review, SDR 23-001, where the project has been evaluated for compliance with the City of Hemet Municipal Code and Chapter 90 – Zoning. As designed and conditioned, the project will have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
d) Less than significant impact. Urban land uses generate light and glare, affecting the night sky's brightness. The lighting associated with the proposed multiple-family development would add to the light and glare, affecting the nighttime views. Furthermore, urban development creates additional reflective surfaces and causes additional glare, including glare during both night and day.

The City of Hemet is in Zone B of the Mount Palomar Observatory in San Diego County.10 The Observatory requires darkness so that the night sky can be viewed clearly. The presence of the observatory necessitates unique nighttime lighting standards in the San Jacinto Valley. Lighting must be designed to limit leak spillage that may obstruct or hinder the view of the nighttime sky.

The General Plan 2030 FEIR provides programs to reduce new sources of light and glare. Program CD-P-20 – Light Pollution and Reflective Materials requires lighting practices that reduce light pollution in new development areas and requires new lighting and existing lighting upgrades to cast light downward and reduce spillover lighting.11 This program also reduces the number of reflective surfaces used in new construction to minimize new sources of glare. Exterior building materials in new development shall comprise a minimum of 50% low-reflectance, non-polished finishes, and bare metallic surfaces found on infrastructures, such as pipes and poles, shall be painted to minimize reflectance and glare. The Zoning Code also provides direction to reduce new sources of light and glare in multiple-family projects under (90-386 (k) -- Lighting.12 These standards include directing, orienting, and shielding the lights downward to reduce light pollution.

The proposed project will adhere to the City’s lighting standards for the R-3 Zone. These standards include requirements for on-site lighting that are shielded to prevent off-site glare, and the candlepower of outdoor lighting shall be the minimum required for safety purposes. The Site Development Review process helps to ensure impacts from glare are reduced. With the implementation of the City’s lighting standards and the Site Development Review process, no long-term visual impacts are anticipated from implementation of the project, therefore, it would have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on creating new sources of substantial light or glare.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
10 Riverside County Parcel Report for Parcel 464270006 and 464270005, accessed March 25, 2024. 11 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted January 12, 2012, Chapter – 7 – Aesthetics, page

4.1-3. 12 Municipal Code – Chapter 90 – Zoning, Article XIII – Multiple-Family – Section 90-386 – Site Development Requirements.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) 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 of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in the conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

20.B.

Comments:
a) No impact. A review of the Department of Conservation, California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping system13 and the General Plan 2030 EIR (Exhibit 4.2-1 – Farmland)14 has found the project site is listed as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban and Built-Up Land, defined as:

FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE (L): Non-irrigated land that is either currently producing crops or has the capacity of production. This land includes dry land grain, dairies, and other agricultural-zoned land not included in the above categories. This land may be important to the local economy due to its productivity.

URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

As noted in the General Plan 2030 EIR, development, particularly residential development, can make farming more difficult or costly due to conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural activities. For example, residents may complain about noise, dust, odors, and low-flying aircraft used to dust or spray crops. Increased restrictions on agriculture processes and other aspects of encroachment on agricultural areas can lower productivity, increase costs, and otherwise impair agricultural operations.15 The subject site is in an urban area with residential uses to the north, east, and south, thereby making agricultural uses difficult at this location.

A review of past aerials and the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix N) indicates that the subject site was used for agricultural purposes from 1954 until the 1980s.

The project would not affect any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, would occur on farmland.
b) No impact. The project site is General Plan designated for residential uses, and the R3 – Multiple Family Residential Zoning is consistent with this General Plan designation.

There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property.16 The adjacent properties to the north, east, and south are developed for residential use. No agricultural uses are currently being operated in or around the subject property. Therefore, the project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on zoning for agricultural uses or on a Williamson Act contract.
13 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Accessed March 6, 2024, website – https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=6586b7d276d84581adf921de7452f765. 14 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted January 12, 2012, Chapter – 8 – Agricultural Resources, Exhibit 4.2-1 Farmland, page 4.2-5. 15 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 8 – Agricultural Resources, page 4.2-9. 16 Riverside County Parcel Report for Parcel 464270006 and 464270005, accessed March 25, 2024.

20.B.

c) No impact. In Southern California, including Riverside County and the City of Hemet, climate and topography limit the types and locations of forest lands and their potential for commercial or industrial timber utilization. Accordingly, no existing or currently proposed zoning of forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones within the City of Hemet exists. In addition, figures released by the State of California indicate that no “California forest land” ownership, either public or private, is mapped for Riverside County, including the City of Hemet. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and the project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
d) No impact. There is no commercial forestry or timber production within the City of Hemet other than possibly nursery stock production (cultivated rather than wild-harvested).

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or forest land conversion to a non-forest use. The project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the loss of forest land or forest land conversion to a non-forest use. e) No impact. As discussed above, the project with the development of the area will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the conversion of Farmland to another use.

There is no commercial forestry or timber production industry within the City of Hemet other than possibly nursery stock production (cultivated rather than wild-harvested).

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or forest land conversion to a non-forest use. The project will have no impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Comments:

The Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Air Quality Study), prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024 (Appendix G), indicates the project will not result in a cumulative net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment. a) Less than significant impact. The applicable air quality plan that applies to the project is the SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) Air Quality Management plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP. "Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

A. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis included in the Air Quality Study, which is summarized below in response to Checklist Questions III(b) through III(d), short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local significance thresholds. The analysis included in the Air Quality Study also found that long-term operations impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.

20.B.

B. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by analyzing the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by SCAG, 2020, includes chapters on the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments must use these as the basis of their plans for consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of Hemet Land Use Plans define the assumptions represented in the AQMP.

The City of Hemet General Plan identifies the site's land use designation as Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposed project is a multi-family residential development. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion.

In summary, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur on the SCAQMD AQMP directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.17
b) Less than significant impact.

CalEEMod
The latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.21) was used to estimate the construction and operation emissions. The emissions incorporate South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402, 403, 1113, and Idling Diesel Vehicle Trucks (as identified in Appendix G). Adherence to these rules is not considered mitigation, as the project is required to incorporate these rules during construction.

Thresholds
Construction Emissions
Regional Significance Thresholds
The following CEQA regional significance thresholds for construction emissions are established for the Basin:
• 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC • 150 lbs/day of PM10 • 100 lbs/day of NOx • 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 550 lbs/day of CO • 150 lbs/day of SO2
17 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 53 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Projects in the basin with construction-related emissions exceeding any of the emission thresholds are considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines.

Operational Emissions
The daily regional operational emissions significance thresholds for the basin are as follows:
• 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC • 150 lbs/day of PM10 • 55 lbs/day of NOx • 55 lbs/day of PM2.5
• 550 lbs/day of CO • 150 lbs/day of SO2
Local Microscale Concentration Standards The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions exceed one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered significant if they increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more.

The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
Thresholds for Localized Significance
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact on the South Coast Air Basin. To assess the impact of local air quality, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), in June 2003, which details the methodology for analyzing local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley source receptor area (SRA 28) and a disturbance of 2 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet) for construction and 5 acres a day for screening of localized operational emissions.18
18 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 46 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level, as demonstrated in Table 5 – Regional Significance – Construction Emissions. They, therefore, would be considered less than significant.19
Regional Significance – Construction Emissions
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
On-Site2 2.13 19.80 19.80 0.03 5.95 3.40
Off-Site3 0.05 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.16 0.04
Total 2.18 19.85 20.48 0.03 6.11 3.44
Grading
On-Site2 3.04 27.20 27.60 0.06 4.71 2.45
Off-Site3 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.26 0.06
Total 3.12 27.29 28.69 0.06 4.97 2.51
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.07 9.85 13.00 0.02 0.38 0.35
Off-Site3 0.90 1.80 15.21 0.01 2.99 0.71
Total 1.97 11.65 28.21 0.03 3.37 1.06
Paving
On-Site2 1.45 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 0.27
Off-Site3 0.06 0.20 1.05 0.00 0.25 0.06
Total 1.51 7.14 11.00 0.01 0.55 0.33
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 60.01 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02
Off-Site3 0.17 0.14 2.75 0.00 0.54 0.13
Total 60.18 0.97 3.88 0.00 0.56 0.15
Total of overlapping phases4 63.66 19.76 43.09 0.04 4.48 1.54 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Construction, architectural coatings, and paving phases may overlap.

Table 5 Regional Significance - Construction Emissions (see Table 10 of Appendix G) Localized Construction Emissions
The data provided in Table 6 – Localized Significance – Construction shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant impact on local air quality would occur from the proposed project's construction.20 Localized Significance – Construction
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 19.80 19.80 5.95 3.40
Grading 27.20 27.60 4.71 2.45
Building Construction 9.85 13.00 0.38 0.35
19 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 48 (Appendix G). 20 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 49 (Appendix G).