Hemet City Council
September 23, 2025

17.I.

Planning Commission Meeting
April 15, 2025
Director Alaniz-Flejter advised existing bill board signs will be required to be removed over time and will remain as “Legal Non-Conforming” until removed.

Chair Beamesderfer recommended staff notify current billboard property owners of the upcoming City Council public hearing.

Commissioner Hill provided comment recommending not allowing billboards on Domenigoni Parkway and restricting new billboard installations to Florida Avenue only.

Commissioner Clark provided comment recommending Lamar be required to remove their existing signs before constructing the new electronic billboards and agrees with Commissioner Hill to not allow billboard signs on Domenigoni Parkway.

Commissioner Viramontes, provided comment agreeing with the intent of Hemet Rises being to reduce the number of static signs.

Motion by Commissioner Hill, second by Commissioner Viramontes, for the Planning Commission to receive and consider the staff report and attached documentation related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2025-001 with recommended changes as follows: restrict the allowable locations to the Florida Avenue corridor, existing billboard owners be notified of the upcoming City Council hearing, 10-foot minimum height requirement on billboards, and establishing a ratio to remove static billboards upon construction of the electronic billboards; adopt Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 25-001 to amend Chapter 90 Article XXXVI "Signs", to Permit Reduction and Relocation Existing Static Outdoor Advertising Displays Under Limited Circumstances, and to Further Amend Sections of Hemet Municipal Code to Harmonize Current Sections with such Reduction and Relocation Language; and find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) the “common sense exemption” as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Passed 4/0.

AYES: Chair Beamesderfer, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Clark, and Commissioner Viramontes
NOES: None

17.I.

Existing Sign Location Map

17.I.

Site - 1 NEC Florida Avenue and California Avenue

17.I.

Site
- 1 NEC Florida Avenue and California Avenue
74 @ California

17.I.

Site
- 1 NEC Florida Avenue and California Avenue
74 @ California

17.I.

Site - 2 Florida Avenue 600 Feet East of California

17.I.

Site
- 2 Florida Avenue 600 Feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California

17.I.

Site
- 2 Florida Avenue 600 Feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California , 600 feet e/o California

17.I.

Site 3
- 1,300 feet East of California

17.I.

Site 3
- 1,300 feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California , 1300 feet e/o California

17.I.

Site 3
- 1,300 feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California , 1300 feet e/o California

17.I.

Map My County Map
Site 4 - 2,500 feet East of California

17.I.

Site 4
- 2,500 feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California , 2,500 feet e/o California

17.I.

Site 4
- 2,500 feet East of California
Hwy 74 e/o California , 2,500 feet e/o California

17.I.

Site 5
– Florida Avenue and Acacia

17.I.

Site 5
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 w/o Acacia , 575 feet w/o Acacia

17.I.

Site 5
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 w/o Acacia , 575 feet w/o Acacia

17.I.

Site 6 – Florida Avenue 500 feet East of Acacia

17.I.

Site 6
– Florida Avenue 500 feet East of Acacia
Hwy 74 e/o Acacia

17.I.

Site 6
– Florida Avenue 500 feet East of Acacia
Hwy 74 @ Acacia

17.I.

Site 7
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 @ Acacia

17.I.

Site 7
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 @ Acacia

17.I.

Site 7
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 @ Acacia

17.I.

Site 8 – Florida Avenue 300 feet West of Acacia

17.I.

Site 8
– Florida Avenue 300 feet West of Acacia
Hwy 74 w/o Cawston

17.I.

Site 8 – Florida Avenue 300 Feet West of Acacia
Hwy 74 West of Cawston , 350 Feet West of Cawston

17.I.

Site 9 – Florida Avenue 500 feet West of Columbia

17.I.

Site 9
– Florida Avenue 500 Feet West of Columbia
Hwy 74 w/o Columbia , 550 Feet w/o Columbia

17.I.

Site 9
– Florida Avenue 500 Feet West of Columbia
Hwy 74 w/o Columbia , 550 Feet w/o Columbia

17.I.

Map My County Map
Site 10 – NCE Florida Avenue and Columbia

17.I.

Site 10 – NCE Florida Avenue and Columbia
Hwy 74 @ Columbia

17.I.

Site 10
– NCE Florida Avenue and Columbia
Hwy 74 @ Columbia

17.I.

Site 11 – Florida Avenue 300 feet w/o Gilmore Street

17.I.

Site 11 – Florida Avenue 300 Feet w/o Gilmore Street

17.I.

Site 12
– Florida Avenue and Cawston

17.I.

Site 12
– Florida Avenue and Cawston

17.I.

Site 12
– Florida Avenue and Acacia
Hwy 74 e/o Acacia , 500 feet e/o Acacia

17.I.

City of Hemet
Planning Commission Meeting

PLANNING STAFF REPORT
Meeting: Planning Commission Meeting - Apr 15 2025
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, Community Development Director TITLE:

An Ordinance of the City of Hemet Amending Portions of the Hemet Municipal Code, Chapter 90 Article XXXVI "Signs", to Permit Reduction and Relocation Existing Static Outdoor Advertising Displays Under Limited Circumstances, and to Further Amend Sections of Hemet Municipal Code to Harmonize Current Sections with such Reduction and Relocation Language.

Environmental: The City has analyzed this proposed project and has determined that it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

PC Resolution
Exhibit A Draft Billboard Digital Display Ordinance
Site Map
Existing Sign Locations and Photos
Digital Display Design Concept 1
Digital Display Design Concept 2 (Planning Commission Preferred) Dec 17 2024 - PC Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission:

1. Receive and consider the staff report and attached documentation related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2025-001; and

2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 25-001 to amend Chapter 90 Article XXXVI "Signs", to Permit Reduction and Relocation Existing Static Outdoor Advertising Displays Under Limited Circumstances, and to Further Amend Sections of Hemet Municipal Code to Harmonize Current Sections with such Reduction and Relocation Language.

3. Find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) the “common sense exemption” as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

17.I.

Alternative Recommendation:

1. The Planning Commission may recommend additional modifications to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

REPORT SUMMARY:

The City of Hemet currently prohibits the construction of new Outdoor Advertising Displays (commonly known as billboards) in all zones in the City. There are currently eleven (11) static outdoor advertising displays located along the Florida Avenue corridor that are legal nonconforming.

The City has received inquiries from billboard companies to encourage the City to entertain possibly upgrading current static billboard to digital, while reducing the number of static billboards. The purpose of this ordinance is to just that - reduce the overall number of outdoor advertising displays within the City, while upgrading to digital through a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement. Such implementation will reduce visual clutter; eliminate non-conforming signage; facilitate the relocation and redistribution of general outdoor advertising signs to more appropriate locations within the City to better serve the advertising needs of the local business community; to allow for incorporation of modern digital displays, and to eliminate the need for the City to pay compensation for removal of existing general outdoor advertising displays to accommodate a public project.

The proposed ordinance would require any billboard owner who desires to convert a static board to digital display to also enter into a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement. Such agreement would be negotiated by the City and the billboard entity and incorporate several terms and conditions to; 1) require a reduction in static displays, 2) ensure proper site location, and 3) ensure adherence to development standards. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance would potentially allow billboards on City-owned or controlled property, wherein the City would lease such property to a billboard company.

In this scenario, the City could possibly generate revenue from such arrangement, subject to terms and conditions of a lease or other agreement. The City is currently working with Lamar Billboards (who owns 10 of the 11 billboards) to effectuate opportunities within the City.

On August 13, 2024, the City Council adopted the Hemet RISES Economic Strategy, which included replacement of Traditional Billboards with Revenue producing Digital Display Billboards.

On December 18, 2024 staff provided a presentation to the Planning Commission on zoning code update for Digital Outdoor Advertising Display Signs, and associated Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement. At that meeting, the Planning Commission provided input on the zoning code update draft ordinance, proposed design concepts, and evaluated potential locations for future digital display boards. A copy of the meeting minutes have been attached for reference. Since then, adjustments to the language of the draft text have been made to to reflect a more cohesive and internally consistent draft ordinance.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED:

17.I.

On March 25, 2025 the City gave public notice by advertising in the Press Enterprise prior to the holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning Commission. To date, staff has received correspondence from three Native American Tribes stating they are not affected by the proposed ZOA and have no comment, and one letter from Riverside County ALUC finding the Project to be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. No other comments were received either in favor of or in opposition to the request.

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.

Enhance the visual appearance of the community to make it attractive and reduce blight.

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

Provide resources for existing and new businesses to enhance the customer service experience.

On August 13 2024, the City Council adopted the Hemet Rises Economic Strategy, which included Replacement of Traditional Billboards with Revenue Producing Digital Display Billboards.

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Increase the community's pride within the City.

GOAL FOUR: PARTNERSHIP & COLLABORATION
To pursue partnerships that will increase the opportunities available to the community, including our businesses, unemployed, and youth populations.

Develop programs to offer support to the community's businesses GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.

Operate in a financially sustainable manner.

Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.

17.I.

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-XXX
Net Reduction and Relocation (ZOA 25-002)

1 2
3 4 CITY OF HEMET
5 Hemet, California
6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
8 RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-XXX
9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
10 THE CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
11 THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO
12 AMEND CHAPTER 90, ARTICLE XXXVI “SIGNS” TO
13 PERMIT REDUCTION AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING
14 STATIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS UNDER
15 LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, AND TO FURTHER AMEND
16 SECTIONS OF THE HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE TO
17 HARMONIZE CURRENT SECTIONS WITH SUCH
18 REDUCTION AND RELOCATION LANGUAGE
19 20 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65854 and 65855, the 21 Planning Commission has the authority to review and make recommendations to the 22 City Council regarding amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance; and 23 24 WHEREAS, on March 25, 2025 the City gave public notice by publishing notice 25 in the Press Enterprise newspaper of the holding of a public hearing regarding 26 consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 25-001, an amendment to the City’s 27 zoning ordinance; and
28 29 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025 the Planning Commission held the noticed public 30 hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or 31 opposition to, the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance and which the 32 Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the City’s zoning 33 ordinance and voted to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the City has analyzed this proposed project and has determined that 36 it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under section 37 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is 38 no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect of the 39 environment; and
40 41 WHEREAS, attached as Exhibit “A” is the proposed Ordinance; and 42 43
44 45

17.I.

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-XXX
Net Reduction and Relocation (ZOA 25-002)

1 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hemet does 2 Resolve, Determine, Find and Order as follows:
3 4 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
5 6 The Planning Commission, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited 7 to, the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, the direction of 8 the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 15, 2025 and documents incorporated 9 therein by reference, and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources 10 Code Sections 21080(e) and 21082.2) within the record or provided at the public 11 hearing of this matter, hereby finds and determines as follows:
12 CEQA: The City has analyzed this proposed project and has determined that it is 13 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 14 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to 15 projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the 16 environment. ZOA 25-001 in itself does not relate to any physical project and will 17 not result in any physical change to the environment and does not affect the land 18 use or density limitations of the General Plan. Therefore, it can be seen with 19 certainty that there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a significant 20 adverse effect on the environment, and therefore, the adoption of this Ordinance 21 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 22 23 SECTION 2: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FINDINGS
24 25 Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-41.5(a), the Planning Commission 26 makes the following findings with respect to this zoning ordinance amendment:
27 28 1. The zoning ordinance amendment is in conformance with the latest adopted 29 general plan for the City.
30 31 Finding: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following General 32 Plan policy:
33 34 Goal LU-11 Promote a strong and diversified economic base and retain and 35 attract new investment, businesses, industries and employment opportunities to 36 the City.
37 • LU11.1 Attract New Business: Support existing businesses and seek to 38 attract new business and industries which strengthen and diversity Hemet’s 39 tax revenue base.
40 • LU-11.11 Establish a Secure Local Revenue Base: Develop a secure, 41 balanced sustainable local revenue base to provide the full range of public 42 services and capital improvements needed to provide an exceptional quality 43 of life for residents, and businesses within the community. 44

17.I.

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-XXX
Net Reduction and Relocation (ZOA 25-002)

1 2 Goal LU -12 Enhance Hemet’s sense of place and local identity to attract visitors 3 and expand the tourist tax base.
4 • LU-12.1 Sustainable Tourism: Maintain and enhance year-round 5 opportunities for sustainable tourism based on the area’s natural resources, 6 historic heritage, and cultural amenities without diminishing the quality of life 7 of current residents.
8 • LU-12.2 Hospitality Oriented: Encourage the retention and development of 9 hospitality uses such as hotels, dinner house restaurants, entertainment 10 venues, golf courses, and other visitor serving uses. 11 • LU-12.3 Regional Tourism Coordination: Coordinate with other tourism 12 organizations and destinations within the San Jacinto Valley, Riverside 13 County and the larger region to partner on the marketing of events, 14 attractions, and hospitality establishments within the City. 15 • LU-12.4 Tourism Venues and Events Promote: Promote tourism venues 16 including museums, cultural establishments and activities, entertainment, 17 recreational and sporting events, and conventions that attract visitors to 18 Hemet and the Valley.
19 • LU-12.6 Recreation Development Support: Support ongoing recreational 20 uses at Diamond Valley Lake by developing area into regional recreational 21 and cultural destinations including uses such as museums, active recreation, 22 fishing, water park, trails, equestrian, educational facilities, and specialty retail 23 and hospitality uses.
24 Goal LU-13 Provide a strategic and proactive economic development program in 25 order to attract, retain and expand businesses, create sustainable jobs for the 26 local work force, and generate revenue to support municipal functions, services, 27 and reinvestment back into the community.
28 • LU-13.1 Regional Economic Development: Participate in regional economic 29 development activities and partnerships that address strategic economic 30 development efforts benefiting and promoting Hemet and the surrounding 31 areas.
32 • LU-13.2 Building, Revitalization and Improvements: Prioritize building 33 restoration, property owner improvements and maintenance, removal of 34 nonconforming signs, abatement of blighted buildings, provision of public 35 and private landscaping, and revitalization of existing businesses as essential 36 elements for economic development.
37 • LU-13.3 Revitalization Financing Tools: Continue to implement financing 38 tools for City-initiated revitalization and to spark private investment. 39 40
41

17.I.

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2025-XXX
Net Reduction and Relocation (ZOA 25-002)

1 2
3 2. The zoning ordinance amendment will protect the public health, safety and 4 welfare.
5 6 Finding: The purpose of a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement is to reduce 7 the overall number of static General Outdoor Advertising signs (commonly known 8 as billboards) within the City by requiring removal of static General Outdoor 9 Advertising signs, and to allow construction of new Digital Outdoor Advertising 10 Display to be placed in more suitable locations and provide for more attractive, 11 aesthetically-pleasing Digital Outdoor Advertising Display designs. Furthermore, 12 such implementation will reduce visual clutter; eliminate non-conforming signage; 13 facilitate the relocation and redistribution of general outdoor advertising signs to 14 more appropriate locations within the City to better serve the advertising needs of 15 the local business community; Therefore, the zoning ordinance amendment will 16 protect the public health, safety and welfare.
17 18 SECTION 3: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
19 20 The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action:
21 22 The Planning Commission approves Resolution recommending that the City 23 Council adopt the proposed Ordinance which is attached hereto and incorporated 24 herein by reference as Exhibit “A.”
25 26 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2025 by the 27 following vote:
28 29 AYES: Chair Lemke, Vice Chair Beamesderfer, Commissioner Wuerth, 30 Commissioner Hill, and Commissioner Booth.
31 NOES: None
32 ABSTAIN: None
33 ABSENT: None
34 __________________________
35 Jacob Beamesderfer, Chair
36 Hemet Planning Commission
37 ATTEST:
38 ________________________________
39 Corina Hernandez, Records Secretary
40 Hemet Planning Commission

17.I.

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HEMET AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 90, Article XXXVI “SIGNS”, TO PERMIT REDUCTION AND

RELOCATION OF EXISTING STATIC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS UNDER

LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, AND TO FURTHER AMEND SECTIONS OF HEMET

MUNICIPAL CODE TO HARMONIZE CURRENT SECTIONS WITH SUCH REDUCTION AND

RELOCATION LANGUAGE
WHEREAS, Outdoor Advertising Displays (commonly known as billboards) and/or the relocation of existing Outdoor Advertising Displays in all zones in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hemet (“City Council”) finds that Relocation and Net Reduction Agreements memorializing the reduction of static Outdoor Advertising Displays, while allowing the construction of Digital Outdoor Advertising Displays, will ultimately reduce the overall number of Outdoor Advertising Displays thereby reducing blight; and
WHEREAS, there will be a decrease in the square footage of existing Outdoor Advertising Displays in the City, which will reduce visual clutter; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to require permitting and oversight of Digital Outdoor Advertising Displays; and
WHEREAS, Relocation and Net Reduction Agreements will generate general fund revenue for the City because the City will benefit from leasing its land to Digital Outdoor Digital Outdoor Advertising Display companies; and
WHEREAS, Relocation and Net Reduction Agreements as set forth herein will serve the public interest of the City by allowing public development to continue in a planned manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council therefore determines that this Ordinance is a reasonable and necessary means to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS.

All of the recitals are true, correct and are adopted as findings.

17.I.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 90-1242 “DEFINITIONS.”
The following edits to Section 90-1242 “Definitions” of the Hemet Municipal Code shall be made as follows:

Digital Outdoor Advertising Display means a General outdoor advertising display (as defined) sign with a fixed or changing display/message composed of a series of lights using digital message technology capable of changing the static message on the sign electronically.

General outdoor advertising sign means a sign that directs attention to a business, profession, product, commodity or service that is not the primary business, profession, commodity, product or service sold, manufactured, conducted or offered on the site on which the sign is located (i.e., a billboard). These signs do not include off-site directional real estate signs.

General outdoor advertising display shall mean a sign, regardless of the number of panels, that meets both the following criteria:
a. The sign contains any component that is more than nine (9) feet in height above the ground and/ or more than five (5) feet in width; and b. The sign advertises any establishment, product, service or activity which is not located, sold, produced or furnished on the property where the sign is located.

This criterion includes any sign regulated by the California Outdoor Advertising Act.

Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement shall mean an agreement entered into by between the City and a Digital Outdoor Advertising Display owner and/or operator to both reduce and relocate existing Outdoor Advertising Displays, which shall be subject to approval by City Council. Such reduction shall be set forth in the Agreement.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 90-1248 “DESIGN, MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.” The following edits to Section 90-1248 “Design, material, construction and maintenance standards” of the Hemet Municipal Code shall be made as follows:

Sec. 90-1248. Design, material, construction and maintenance standards.

Each permanent sign that requires a sign permit must comply with the following standards:

17.I.

Created: 2025-09-09 14:19:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 67, Update 2)

(1) Materials and colors. All permanent signs must be constructed of durable materials that are compatible in appearance to the building supporting or identified by the sign. Sign colors and materials should be selected to be compatible with the existing building designs and should contribute to legibility and design integrity. No sign may contain more than five colors. Tints and shades of a color will be considered as one color. Black and white will be considered as colors.
(2) Relationship to buildings. Each permanent sign located upon a site with more than one main building, such as a commercial, office or industrial complex must be designed to incorporate the materials common or similar to all buildings. (3) Relationship to other signs. Where there is more than one sign on a site or building, all permanent signs must have designs that similarly treat or incorporate the following design elements:
a. Type of construction materials;
b. Sign/letter color and style of copy;
c. Method used for supporting sign (e.g., wall or ground base); d. Sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area;
e. Illumination; and
f. Location.
(4) Sign illumination. Illumination from or upon any sign must be shaded, shielded, directed or reduced so as to minimize light spillage onto the public right-of-way or adjacent properties, and in no event may illumination be permitted to cause such excessive glare as to constitute a potential hazard to traffic safety.

Externally illuminated signs must be lighted by screened or hidden light sources.

The provisions of this subsection do not apply to LED display boards or Digital Outdoor Advertising Displays.
(5) Construction. Every sign, and all parts, portions and materials thereof, must be manufactured, assembled and erected in compliance with all applicable state, federal and city regulations including the city's building code and electrical code.

Under no circumstances may a permanent sign have an exposed back. (6) Maintenance. Every sign and all parts, portions and materials must be maintained in good repair. The display surface of all signs must be kept clean, neatly painted, and free from rust, cracking, peeling, corrosion or other states of disrepair. This maintenance obligation includes the replacement of malfunctioning or burned-out lamps, replacement of broken faces, repainting of rust, chipped or peeling structures or faces within 15 days following written notification by the city.
(7) Removal of signs and restoration of building or property. When there is a change or discontinuance of a business or occupancy such that a sign no longer properly identifies a place of business or occupancy, the sign must be removed or the name of the prior business or occupant either removed, or the sign face covered in a manner that blends with the building or supporting structure within 60 days of the change or discontinuance of a business or occupancy. Within 30 days of the removal of a sign from a building or from the grounds of the premises if a freestanding sign, the building or the grounds of the premises must be repaired

17.I.

Created: 2025-09-09 14:19:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 67, Update 2)

and restored to remove any visible damage or blemish left by the removal of the sign.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 90-1280 “PROHIBITED SIGNS.”
The following edits to Section 90-1280 “Prohibited Signs” of the Hemet Municipal Code shall be made as follows:

Sec. 90-1280. Prohibited signs.

The following signs are prohibited in all zones:
(1) Temporary signs, except as specifically permitted in sections 90-1245 and 90- 1275. Prohibited temporary signs include, but are not limited to, stake signs (except real estate open house signs) and hand-held commercial signs. (2) Devices projecting or otherwise reproducing the image of a sign or message on any surface or object.
(3) General outdoor advertising signs, except legal nonconforming Digital Outdoor Advertising Display signs as permitted in subsection 90-1281(c), unless relocated pursuant to a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement pursuant to Section 90-1285.
(4) Inflatable signs, except balloons as permitted under section 90-1275. (5) Mobile signs.
(6) Moving and flashing signs.
(7) Off-site signs, except for off-site directional real estate signs as permitted under section 90-1275.
(8) Portable commercial signs, except temporary signs as permitted under section 90-1275.
(9) Roof signs.
(10) Signs located in such a manner to constitute a potential traffic hazard or obstruct the view of any authorized traffic sign or signal device, or designed to resemble or conflict with any authorized traffic control sign.
(11) Signs emitting audible sounds, odors or particulate matter.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT TO HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 90-1281 “LEGAL NONCONFORMING SIGNS.”
The following edits to Section 90-1281 “Legal nonconforming signs” of the Hemet Municipal Code shall be made as follows:

Sec. 90-1281. Legal nonconforming signs.
(a) Generally. In order to limit the number and extent of legal nonconforming signs created by the adoption of this article, it is the intent to permit nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Therefore, a sign

17.I.

Created: 2025-09-09 14:19:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 67, Update 2)

existing before the effective date of the original ordinance codified in this article (August 28, 1984), or existing on the date of any amendment to this article or a zone change or annexation to the city, may be used in accordance with other provisions of this article, provided that no such legal nonconforming sign may be enlarged, expanded, extended, altered, moved, reestablished after abandonment, or restored after destruction, except that the text or sign face of a legal nonconforming sign may be changed as long as there is no change in area or sign structure. (b) Special circumstances. In accordance with California Business and Profession Code Section 5499, no legal nonconforming sign will be required to be removed on the sole basis of its height or size if special topographic circumstances would result in a material impairment of visibility of the sign or the owner's or user's ability to adequately and effectively continue to communicate to the public through the use of the sign. The owner or user may maintain the sign at the premises and at a location necessary for continued public visibility at the height or size at which the sign was previously lawfully erected pursuant to all applicable codes, regulations and permits.

Any such sign will be deemed to be in conformance with this article. (c) Legal nonconforming general outdoor advertising signs. Existing legal nonconforming general outdoor advertising signs may be relocated in accordance with a Net Reduction and Relocation Agreement pursuant to Section 90-1285 when the following requirements are met:
(1) Proof that the existing sign was legally erected.
(2) A conditional use permit has been approved in accordance with sections 90-42 through 90-42.11 of this Code. Prior to approval of the conditional use permit, an additional finding must be made by the approving authority that the removal and relocation of the general outdoor advertising sign fulfills a public purpose. In furtherance of that requirement, the conditional use permit must include a requirement that the sign be made available for use by the city for civic advertising purposes, at no charge, for up to a maximum of 30 calendar days per year, on such terms as may be set forth in the conditional use permit. (3) The existing general outdoor advertising sign(s) must be removed prior to erecting a new Digital Outdoor Advertising Display sign in accordance with the Net Reduction and Relocation Agreement pursuant to Section 90-1285. (4) If the existing sign was double-faced, then its replacement may be double-faced.

However, in no case may the sign area exceed 300 square feet per face. The maximum height of the sign may not exceed 25 feet.
(5) The relocated sign may not be illuminated unless the original sign was illuminated.
(6) If the sign is illuminated, the illumination must be turned off no later than 10:00 p.m.
(7) There may be no moving parts or electrification of the sign.

SECTION 5. ADDITION TO HEMET MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 90-1285 “RELOCATION AND NET REDUCTION AGREEMENT FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS.”

17.I.

The following addition to Section 90-1285 “Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement for Outdoor Advertising Displays” of the Hemet Municipal Code shall be made as follows:

Sec. 90-1285. Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement for Outdoor Advertising Displays

1. Purposes of Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement.
a. The purpose of a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement is to reduce the overall number of static General Outdoor Advertising signs (commonly known as billboards) within the City by requiring removal of static General Outdoor Advertising signs, and to allow construction of new Digital Outdoor Advertising Display to be placed in more suitable locations and provide for more attractive, aestheticallypleasing Digital Outdoor Advertising Display designs. Relocation and Net Reduction Agreements are part of the demonstrated commitment of the City of Hemet to improve the aesthetic appearance of the City while advancing the City’s economic strategy Hemet RISES. b. For static or digital General Outdoor Advertising signs under condemnation or threat of condemnation threat by any legally-created public entity possessing and exercising its legal eminent domain/condemnation authority the purpose is to allow relocation of static or digital General Outdoor Advertising signs to reduce the overall number of legal nonconforming General Outdoor Advertising signs, while providing the ability to erect Digital Outdoor Advertising Display more attractive, aesthetically-pleasing Digital Outdoor Advertising Display designs. A further purpose is to reduce or eliminate the City's obligation to pay compensation for the removal of static or digital General Outdoor Advertising signs when such static or digital General Outdoor Advertising signs are subject to condemnation or threat of condemnation by the City.

2. Authority. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, and consistent with the California Business and Professions Code Outdoor Advertising provisions, existing General Outdoor Advertising signs shall be reduced in number and relocated, as per the provisions of this Section and with a Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement entered into between the City and a Digital Outdoor Advertising Display owner and operator.

3. Eligibility requirements. Pursuant to Section 90-1285 (1) above, existing nonconforming General outdoor advertising signs may be relocated pursuant to a Relocation and Net Reduction only under one of the following conditions:

17.I.

a. The applicant chooses to relocate legal nonconforming static General Outdoor Advertising display(s), and erect a Digital Outdoor Advertising Display in accordance with Section 90-1285 below; or b. The General Outdoor Advertising Display proposed for relocation is the subject of any eminent domain/condemnation action or threat of eminent domain/condemnation action by a legally created public entity possessing eminent domain/condemnation authority.

4. Requirements. In order to erect a Digital Outdoor Advertising Display, a Digital Outdoor Advertising Display owner and/or operator must comply with all of the following requirements:
a. Payment of fees to City of Hemet, and otherwise, as applicable; b. Compliance with California Environment Quality Act;
c. Submittal of any applicable studies, such as a photometric study; d. A Digital Outdoor Advertising Display may only be erected pursuant to Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement provided that:
i. A Digital Outdoor advertising display may only be located on any property or right-of-way owned or controlled by the City (“City Property”); and
ii. The Digital Outdoor Advertising Display shall not be erected closer than 2000 feet to an existing Outdoor Advertising Display (digital or otherwise); and
iii. The Digital Outdoor Advertising Display shall use state of the art light-blocking technology so as to reduce light emissions; and
iv. The Digital Outdoor Advertising Display shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height as measured from the grade of the road; and v. The total area of a single sign face shall not exceed 240 square feet, per panel; and
vi. The Digital Outdoor Advertising Display shall be integrated as part of the overall design of the site, if the site is already developed; and
vii. The site on which the Digital Outdoor Advertising Display is located shall be appropriately embellished with appropriate hardscape design as to enhance the visual aspect of the site.

Such hardscaping shall be maintained by the Digital
Advertising Display owner and/or operator; and
viii. The Digital Outdoor Advertising Display shall not cause the City to be non-compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, or any other Federal, State or local law or regulation; and

17.I.

ix. All Digital Outdoor Advertising Display must comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations.

5. Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement. Every Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement shall provide a reduction in the number of General Outdoor Advertising signs, as so agreed to in the Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement. All Relocation and Net Reduction Agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. A public hearing is not needed. In order to approve the Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement, the City Council must make the following findings, in addition to any other findings it may see fit:
a. The proposed Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, purposes and provisions of the Hemet General Plan, the Hemet Municipal Code and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The proposed Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement provides for the required and proper net reduction of static General outdoor advertising signs; and
c. The proposed Digital Outdoor Advertising Display is compatible with the uses and structures on the site and in the surrounding area; and d. The proposed Digital Outdoor Advertising Display will not create a traffic or safety problem, including problems associated with onsite access circulation or visibility;
e. The proposed Digital Outdoor Advertising Display would not interfere with onsite parking or landscaping required by the City’s Municipal Code; and
f. The Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement contributes to the reduction of visual clutter within the City; and
g. The proposed Digital Outdoor Advertising Display would not otherwise result in a threat to the general health, safety and welfare of City residents.

Section 6. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15061, subsection (b)(3), in that the proposed ordinance involves a proactive measure to prohibit certain uses within the Downtown Area and does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment.

17.I.

Section 7. SEVERABILITY
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its second reading.

17.I.

[THIS PORTION OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
The Ordinance was approved by the City Council and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ____, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Steven Pacifico Graham, City Attorney

17.I.

Sign Legend
Existing Sign Location
Relocation Area
1 1
2 34
5 6
7 9
8 10
2 1 11
1

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 12:42:50 PM
Map My County Map
Site 1 NEC Florida Avenue and California Avenue
0 188 376 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:

C V K LTD PARTNERSHIP

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 12:52:25 PM
Site 2 Florida Avenue 600 Feet East of California
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner: VALNITECO INC

17.I.

Owner:HARWIN PARKERSBURG

CHAUDHURI KALI P

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 1:05:07 PM
Site 3 1300 Feet east of California
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:

HEXAGONAL PARTNERSHIP

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 1:09:19 PM
Site 4 2500 Feet east of California
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:

CHAUDHURI KALI P

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 1:23:03 PM
Site 5 Florida Avenue and Acacia
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner
MARKHAM 212

17.I.

Owner:HARWIN PARKERSBURG

CHAUDHURI KALI P

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 2:24:28 PM
Site 6 Florida Avenue 500 Feet east of Acacia
0 47 94 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner: RIBOLI STEVEN J &

SANTO J, COLOMBATTI CATHY
RIBOLI

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 2:29:39 PM
Site 7 Florida Avenue and Acacia
0 47 94 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:S & R PARTNERS

17.I.

Owner:

HEXAGONAL PARTNERSHIP

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 2:32:54 PM
Site 8 Florida Avenue 300 Feet west of Acacia
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner: BETA STORAGE

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 2:38:15 PM
Site 9 Florida Avenue 500 Feet west of Columbia
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:

CHAUDHURI KALI P

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 2:41:22 PM
Site 10 NEC Florida Avenue and Columbia
0 47 94 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:

LEOS ROBERTO, LEOS ALEXIS D

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
Map My County Map
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON... 12/11/2024 3:01:37 PM
Site 11 Florida Avenue 300 Feet west of Gilmore Street
0 94 188 Feet
County Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel APNs
Parcels, Public
Blueline Streams
City Areas
Owner:HARWIN PARKERSBURG

17.I.

17.I.

_ \g?‘ MEMORIAL
.3, *W‘
DAY
5K 10K KIDS 1M
x ’ 2H
.4O
I11 :mEmH

CALIFORN'A

17.I.

MEMORIAL
DAY
5K 10K KIDS 1M

17.I.

MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
City of Hemet
City Public Library
Tuesday, December 17, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission of the City of Hemet met this date in a Regular Session at 6:07 p.m. in the Hemet Public Library, 2nd Floor, located at 300 E. Latham Avenue, Hemet with Chair Beamesderfer presiding.

2. ROLL CALL
Community Development Director Alaniz-Flejter provided the Roll Call as follows:

Present: Chair Beamesderfer
Vice Chair Papp
Commissioner Hill
Commissioner Clark
Commissioner Wuerth

Absent: None

3. INVOCATION AND FLAG SALUTE
Invocation was given and Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Hill.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
No public comments were given nor received.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.A. Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 3, 2024.

Motion by Vice Chair Papp, second by Commissioner Clark, to approve the revised minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 3, 2024. Passed 5/0.

AYES: Chair Beamesderfer, Vice Chair Papp, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Clark, and Commissioner Wuerth
NOES: None

17.I.

Planning Commission Meeting
December 17, 2024

6. DISCUSSION - ACTION ITEMS

6.A. Presentation on Potential Zoning Code Update for Digital Outdoor Advertising Display Signs with Relocation and Net Reduction Agreement.

Director Alaniz-Flejter gave a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Wuerth inquired on the city’s purpose for the zoning code update and expressed concern for the current property owners who will no longer receive revenue from existing billboards.

Director Alaniz-Flejter confirmed the intent of the code update is to eliminate legal nonconforming signs.

Attorney Mizrahi advised negotiations will be done between the billboard owner and property owners in accordance with their individual lease terms.

Economic Development Manager Sandoval provided comment advising the Commission Lamar Company currently holds month-to-month leases with 10 of the 11 existing billboards; the City intends on holding a meeting with property owners to advise them of the zoning code update; the process will include Lamar issuing lease termination notification to property owners; and the City will be given time slots on the new billboards for civic messages at no cost.

Commissioner Clark requested clarity on the definition of legal non-conforming and expressed concern with the loss of revenue for the current property owners. City Attorney Mizrahi provided the definition of legal non-conforming and advised of the requirement for cities to allow ample time for a use to continue after becoming legal non-conforming which has been done. In addition, she advised Lamar Company requested for the City to amend their code to allow updates to the current boards as to become legal.

Commissioner Hill provided comment advising his preference is with style no. 2; recommended a stipulation requiring distance requirements between signs; restricting sign locations to Florida Avenue corridor; and requested a revenue comparison between static and digital signs.

Vice Chair Papp provided disclosure he has worked directly with Lamar at his city of employment and provided the following comments: Caltrans has criteria for any roadway considered a “primary highway” which pertains to Florida Avenue; city to consider allowance of billboards on Highways 74 and 79; in favor of style no. 2; vast depth required for footings may interfere with public utilities; advised state law does allow for billboards on private property and inquired if City is allowed to be more restrictive; Section 90-1285.1 a and b discuss a reduction of existing billboards but does not clarify the total number of billboards to be allowed; subsection 4.d.i may be inconsistent with state law regarding construction in public right-ofway; subsection 4.d.ii may also be inconsistent, as there must be 1,000 foot of separation; inconsistency with height restrictions in subsections 4.d., iv and v; and expressed concern with subsection 4.d.x. being legally enforceable.

17.I.

Planning Commission Meeting
December 17, 2024
City Attorney Mizrahi confirmed the following: Business & Professions Code and Caltrans provide minimum distance requirements and the City may choose to increase that distance; currently a billboard company has the right to enter into an agreement with a private owner; new ordinance will only allow billboards on city owned property; language will be added to ordinance clarifying intent of ordinance and stating allowable sign area of new signs cannot exceed sign area of existing signs.

Director Alaniz-Flejter advised staff will review subsections 4.d. iv and v for consistency and will add language to provide clarity on height restrictions from the underside of sign and allowing flexibility for variances due to road grade levels.

Chair Beamesderfer provided comment inquiring if any billboard signs are city owned; expressed concern with the proposed sign location near Four Seasons; two signs may not be sufficient; agrees to billboard separation requirements; expressed concern with property owner off Gilmore Street who has been wanting to upgrade their sign; requested clarity of definition on pages 41-42 regarding offsite advertising criteria; in favor of proposed billboard style no. 2; expressed concern with the possibility of Caltrans easement issues; and inquired on billboard maintenance responsibilities.

Manager Sandoval confirmed there are no signs currently on city property.

Director Alaniz-Flejter clarified one of the proposed locations is city owned and confirmed definitions on pages 41-42 will define outdoor advertising displays.

City Attorney Mizrahi advised lease agreement language will require lessor, or the billboard company, be responsible for billboard maintenance and may also include surrounding landscape requirements.

Commissioner Clark inquired if the City has forwarded the proposed ordinance to Caltrans for their review.

Attorney Mizrahi advised the City has not forwarded the proposed ordinance to Caltrans and confirmed Caltrans approval is not required.

Director Alaniz-Flejter confirmed the plan of action is to not have any billboards constructed on Caltrans right of way.

Commissioner Wuerth provided comment requesting the city reach out to current property owners to fully explain the new ordinance and process; advised he is favor of style no. 2.

Commissioner Hill requested information be provided to the Commission to include a revenue analysis and list of current property owners.

Vice Chair Papp inquired if city has any intention of converting Highway 74 (Florida Avenue) into a scenic highway and advised he is a proponent of creating a revenue sharing program.

17.I.

Planning Commission Meeting
December 17, 2024
Chair Beamesderfer requested clarity on the time frames stipulated in the ordinance regarding violation enforcement and advised he also is in favor of a revenue sharing program.

17.I.

ZOA25-001/ZOA25-002 - Page 1 of 2
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Ave
Hemet, California 92543
Account Number: 5209912
Ad Order Number: 0011732926
Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication: The Press-Enterprise
Publication Dates: 05/01/2025
Total Amount: $458.09
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $458.09
Notice ID: E6tdata4qLSaCGAc4lO8
Invoice Text: City of Hemet Notice of Public Hearing The City of Hemet is providing alternative measures for the public to attend/view this public hearing. This meeting will be livestreamed on the City's website at https://hemetca.gov/agenda. Members of the Public who wish to comment on matters before the Council, in lieu of attending in person, may submit comments on or before 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by using the following link: https://hemetca.civicweb.net/Portal/CitizenEngagement.aspx.

Comments will be recorded in the official meeting record. POTENTIAL USE OF AB 2449’S JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PROVISIONS - In the event a City Councilmember joins the meeting virtually under AB 2449, then members of the public can utilize the number below to participate via teleconference. If all participating Councilmembers are physically present, then the call-in feature will be unavailable, but the meeting can still be viewed at the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83093504096 or calling the teleconference line 1 669 900 6833, Webinar ID 830 9350 4096: Passcode: 745765 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN

THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY OF HEMET CITY COUNCIL ON THE FOLLOWING: Project: (ZOA 25-001) An Ordinance of the City of Hemet Amending Portion of the Hemet Municipal Code, Chapter 12, to Permit Reduction and Relocation of Existing Static Outdoor Advertising Displays Under Limited Circumstances, and to further Amend Sections of the Hemet Municipal Code to Harmonize current Sections with such Reduction and Relocation Language.

Environmental Determination: The City has analyzed this proposed project and has determined that it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

17.I.

ZOA25-001/ZOA25-002 - Page 1 of 2
The Press-Enterprise
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Ave
Hemet, California 92543
Publication: The Press-Enterprise

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011732926
FILE NO. 0011732926

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date of
March 29, 1957, Case Number 65673, under date of
August 25, 1995, Case Number 267864, and under date
of September 16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013; that
the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with
the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, and not in any supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
05/01/2025
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: May 1, 2025.

At: Riverside, California
______________________________
Signature

17.I.

ZOA25-001/ZOA25-002 - Page 2 of 2

17.I.

I hereby certify that on May 1 2025 | deposited In the United States mail, at the City of Hemet, letters giving notice ofa public hearingto be conducted by the City of Hemet City Council as follows:

Project No: ZOA25—001
Project Name: Electronic Billboard Ordinance
Date of Public Hearing: May 13, 2025
Postage: 12 x $0.69 $ 8.28
The above-described letters were sent by first class mail and addressed per the appended list
Ideclare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

M7 JA—ES \ 35
Signature Date

17.I.

City of Hemet
Notice of Public Hearing
TheCityof Hemet is providingalternativemeasuresforthe publicto attend/viewthis publichearing Thismeetingwillbe livestreamedonthe City'swebsneat https:/lhemetca.gov/agenda.Membersofthe Publicwhowishto commentonmattersbefore the Council,in lieuof attendingin person,maysubmitcommentson or before 2:00 pm the day ofthe meetingby usingthe followinglink:htt s://hemetca.civicweb.net’Portal/CitizenEn a ement.as x, Commentswillbe recordedin the ot?cialmeeting record.POTENTIALUSEOFAB2449's JUSTCAUSEOR EMERGENCYCIRCUMSTANCES PROVISIONS- Intheevent a CityCouncilmember joinsthe meetingVinvallyunderAB2449,thenmembersof the publiccanutilizethe numberbelowto participateViateleconference.If all participatingCouncilmembersare physicallypresent. then the call-infeaturewillbe unavailable,butthemeetingcanstillbeviewedat thelink:https://U302webzoomusl'l83093504096orcallingthe teleoonlerence linei 6699006833,WebinarID83093504096:Passcode:745765

NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENTHATAPUBLICHEARINGWILLBEHELDBYTHECITYOFHEMETCITYCOUNCILONTHE FOLLOWING:

Project: (ZOA25001IAnOrdinanceofthe CityofHemetAmendingPortionoftheHemet MunicipalCode.Chapter 12,to PermitReductionand RelocationofExistingStatic OutdoorAdvertisingDisplaysUnderLimitedCircumstances,andto furtherAmend Sections ofthe HemetMunicipalCode to HarmonizecurrentSectionswithsuch Reductionand RelocationLanguage.

EnvironmentalDetermination: The Cityhas analyzedthis proposed projectand has determinedthat itis exempt fromthe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)undersection15061(b)(3)of the CEQAGuidelines,whichprovidesthat CEQAonlyappliesto proiectsthat have the potentialtor causrnga Signi?canteffecton the environment.

Locationof Property: City-Wide
Applicant: City-Initiated
Dateof Hearing: May13.2025
Timeof Hearing: 6:00PM
Placeof Hearing: HemetPublicLibrary,2"‘1Floor
300E.LathamAvenue.

Hemet,CA92543
Shouldyou have any questions concerning this project, please contact MoniqueAlaniz—Flejter at (951) 765-2370or mommy
ANvINTERESTEDPARTVMAvSUBMITWRITTENCOMMENTSPRIORTO THEHEARINGORAPPEARANDPRESENTANvINFORMATIONwHICH MAvBEOF ASSISTANCETo THECITvCOUNCIL.A COPv or THEPROJECTAPPLICATIONS) ANDRELATEDDOCUMENTSAREAVAILABLE FORINSPECTIONPLEASECONTACTTHEPROJECTPLANNERTo INSPECTDOCUMENTSAs A RESULTOF THiSPUBLICHEARINGAND COMMENTS, THEPROPOSEDPROJECTMAYBEEITHERACCEPTEDASPRESENTED,MODIFIED, ORDENIEDiFvouCHALLENGETHE NATURE OF THEABOVELISTEDITEMINCOURT, you MAYBELIMITEDTo RAISINGONLYTHOSElSSUESVOUDRSOMEONEELSERAISEDAT THE PUBLICHEARINGDESCRIBEDINTHISNOTICEOR INWRITTENCORRESPONDENCEDELIVEREDTO THECITYOFFICES,AT.0RPRIOR To.

THEPUBLICHEARING
Postedon May 1.2025

17.I.

17.I.

17.I.

ZOAs/Newland Simpson - Page 1 of 2
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
[email protected]
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Ave
Hemet, California 92543
Account Number: 5209912
Ad Order Number: 0011744045
Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication: The Press-Enterprise
Publication Dates: 07/03/2025
Total Amount: $766.59
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $766.59
Notice ID: V73B0aRgctumwb222wKe
Invoice Text: City of Hemet Notice of Public Hearing The City of Hemet is providing alternative measures for the public to attend/view this public hearing. This meeting will be livestreamed on the City's website at https://hemetca.gov/agenda. Members of the Public who wish to comment on matters before the Council, in lieu of attending in person, may submit comments on or before 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by using the following link: https://hemetca.civicweb.net/Portal/CitizenEngagement.aspx.

Comments will be recorded in the official meeting record. POTENTIAL USE OF AB 2449’S JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PROVISIONS - In the event a City Councilmember joins the meeting virtually under AB 2449, then members of the public can utilize the number below to participate via teleconference. If all participating Councilmembers are physically present, then the call-in feature will be unavailable, but the meeting can still be viewed at the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85945198354 or calling the teleconference line 1 669 900 6833, Webinar ID 859 4519 8354: Passcode: 745765 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN

THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY OF HEMET CITY COUNCIL ON THE FOLLOWING: REVISED PROJECT: General Plan Amendment 22-003, Conditional Use Permit 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map 38800 (Newland Simpson Project): The Project includes development of a 74.88-acre Project site with an 884,760 square-foot high-cube warehouse building, including 9,000 square feet of office space, 938 Auto Parking Stalls, on-site Landscaping, 202 Truck Trailer Parking Stalls, and 146 dock doors. The amended Project eliminates the previously proposed 309,338 sq ft Building 2 and 8.9‑acre trailer‑storage lot and limits development of the

17.I.

ZOAs/Newland Simpson - Page 1 of 2
The Press-Enterprise
3512 14 Street
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 368-9229
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Ave
Hemet, California 92543
Publication: The Press-Enterprise

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc: 0011744045
FILE NO. 0011744045

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
I am a citizen of the United States. I
am over the age of eighteen years and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESSENTERPRISE, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily
in the County of Riverside, and which
newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riverside, State of California, under
date of April 25, 1952, Case Number
54446, under date of March 29, 1957,
Case Number 65673, under date of
August 25, 1995, Case Number
267864, and under date of September
16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013;
that the notice, of which the annexed is
a printed copy, has been published in
said newspaper in accordance with the
instructions of the person(s) requesting
publication, and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
07/03/2025
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Date: July 3, 2025.

At: Riverside, California
______________________________
Signature

17.I.

ZOAs/Newland Simpson - Page 2 of 2

17.I.

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 23 2025
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Benigno Sandoval, Economic Development Manager;
☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:

Establishment of a Two (2) Member Ad-Hoc Committee to Participate in Negotiations of a Hemet Stock Farm Development Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Pass a Motion establishing a two (2) member Ad-Hoc Committee to participate in negotiations for a Hemet Stock Farm Development Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hemet was approached late last year, in October 2024, by Dano Specialties, which had purchased the entire Hemet Stock Farm from the previous owner to develop the land into singlefamily housing, while also preserving the historical buildings currently on the parcel.

The Hemet Stock Farm development, a project of significant historical and community importance, will require a specialized and focused approach to ensure its success. Given its unique attributes, including its historical significance and the community's desire for a well-balanced and thoughtfully designed development, the City will benefit from the establishment of a City Council ad-hoc committee to participate with City staff in development agreement negotiations with developer representatives. The goal of the ad-hoc is to bring in much-needed hospitality amenities, including live events, community gathering spaces, restaurants, music, fairs, games, and a historical museum.

This Ad-Hoc will conduct a thorough review of the proposed plans, address community concerns, and negotiate with the developer to ensure the project aligns with the City's long-term vision and the interests of its residents, all while respecting the site's heritage.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

18.A.

The City Council has approved previous ad hoc committees, such as the Christmas Décor, Business, and Digital Billboard ad hoc committees.

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 and reduce blight.

Objective 2: Explore and implement homelessness solutions for the City of Hemet.

Objective 3: Increase Public Safety visibility and response.

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

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

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

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.

GOAL FOUR: PARTNERSHIP & COLLABORATION
To pursue partnerships that will increase the opportunities available to the community, including our businesses, unemployed, and youth populations.

Objective 1: Develop concepts and programs to increase opportunities for youth recreation.

Objective 2: Develop concepts and programs to enhance the quality of life services.

Objective 3: Develop programs to offer support to the community's businesses GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.

Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.

Objective 2: Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.

Objective 3: Provide Council with policies that are consistent while lessening liabilities.

Objective 4: Increase employee retention by training and creating a positive workplace.

Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

18.A.

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 23 2025
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney;
☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:

Dissolution of the Hemet Fire and Life Safety Agency and Department of Life Safety; Organizational Realignment of Fire Prevention, Building & Safety, Code Enforcement, and Economic Development RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Rescinding the Prior Action Establishing the Hemet Fire & Life Safety Agency and the Department of Life Safety; Reassigning Fire Prevention, Building & Safety, Code Enforcement, And Economic Development Functions; Authorizing the City Manager to Implement Budget Neutral Transfers and Related Administrative Actions; and Establishing an Effective Date of December 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

On October 11, 2022, the City Council considered and approved a resolution to establish the Hemet Fire & Life Safety Agency and the Department of Life Safety, consolidating Fire Prevention, Building & Safety, and Code Enforcement into a single department, with related budget reallocations.

On August 12, 2025, the City Council received a Presentation from Citygate and Associates, including the final report and implementation action plan for their City of Hemet Development Review Process and Staffing Analysis.

Following subsequent operational experience, staff now recommends returning to a traditional alignment to enhance customer service consistency in development services, streamline code enforcement with planning/building, and preserve a direct line between Fire Prevention and emergency operations.

ANALYSIS:

Organizational Realignment (effective December 1, 2025).

18.B.

Fire Prevention reassigned to the Fire Department. Restores direct integration of prevention, inspection, and operations under the Fire Chief, ensuring a unified fire and life-safety policy and field response.

Building & Safety and Code Enforcement reassigned to Community Development. Reunifies plan check, inspections, entitlement/land-use compliance, and code enforcement within one department, improving permit flow, case coordination, and customer experience at the development counter.

Economic Development reassigned to the City Manager’s Office. Positions business attraction/retention, strategic initiatives, and interagency partnerships under the City’s chief executive for cross-department execution and regional coordination.

Implementation & Authority.

The Resolution grants the City Manager limited authority to:

Execute budget transfers necessary to align staffing, services, and operating lines without increasing total appropriations; and
Make conforming administrative changes (policies, procedures, fee administration references, forms, org charts, website/communications, etc.) with City Attorney concurrence, ensuring continuity of operations without repeated return items for minor conforming actions. Substantive policy changes outside this scope would still return to Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:

Neutral (no net increase). The City Manager is authorized to process budget-neutral transfers to reassign existing appropriations and related revenues among affected departments and funds. The City Manager will report transfers at the next regular Council meeting following each set of transfers.

Future modifications may be necessary, but are anticipated to be addressed as part of the City's normal mid-year and annual budget review cycles.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution DLS Organizational Update

18.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE PRIOR

ACTION ESTABLISHING THE HEMET FIRE & LIFE

SAFETY AGENCY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LIFE
SAFETY; REASSIGNING FIRE PREVENTION, BUILDING
& SAFETY, CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT BUDGET NEUTRAL

TRANSFERS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTIONS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
OF DECEMBER 1, 2025
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about October 11, 2022, the City Council considered and adopted a resolution establishing the Hemet Fire & Life Safety Agency and the Department of Life Safety, consolidating certain functions and reallocating budgetary resources (the “DLS Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, based on operational experience and the City’s Strategic Plan goals for customer service, development process efficiency, and public safety, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to rescind the DLS Resolution and restore a traditional organizational alignment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to authorize the City Manager to implement budget-neutral transfers and make necessary conforming administrative

18.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
amendments, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, to effectuate this realignment without increasing total appropriations.

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

Section 1. Findings; Incorporation. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals true and correct and incorporates them herein by this reference.

Section 2. Rescission of Prior Action. The City Council hereby rescinds, effective December 1, 2025, the DLS Resolution establishing the Hemet Fire & Life Safety Agency and the Department of Life Safety, including any related organizational assignments or budget structures adopted solely to implement that reorganization.

Section 3. Organizational Realignment (Effective December 1, 2025). (a) Fire Prevention is assigned to and shall operate within the Fire Department, under the direction of the Fire Chief.
(b) Building & Safety is assigned to and shall operate within the Community Development Department, under the direction of the Community Development Director. (c) Code Enforcement is assigned to and shall operate within the Community Development Department, under the direction of the Community Development Director. (d) Economic Development is assigned to and shall operate within the City Manager’s Office, under the direction of the City Manager or designee.

Section 4. Budget Transfers; Reporting.
(a) The City Manager is authorized and directed to implement budget transfers among departments, divisions, funds, and accounts as necessary to align

18.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
appropriations, revenues, and positions with this Resolution, provided total City appropriations are not increased.
(b) The City Manager shall report such transfers to the City Council at the next regular City Council meeting following the transfers as a Receive & File.

Section 5. Administrative Authority to Implement. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all other actions necessary to carry out this Resolution, including making conforming amendments to documents, policies, procedures, fee administration references, organizational charts, job reporting relationships, publicfacing materials, and similar matters that might otherwise require City Council action, with the concurrence of the City Attorney. Substantive policy changes outside the scope of this implementing authority shall return to the City Council for consideration.

Section 6. Personnel and Labor Compliance. Nothing in this Resolution authorizes layoffs or compensation changes. Any personnel adjustments will be implemented in accordance with applicable MOUs, Personnel Rules, and State law, and subject to any required meet-and-confer.

Section 7. CEQA. This action is not a project under CEQA.

Section 8. Severability. If any portion of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption; Sections 2 and 4 shall be effective December 1, 2025.

18.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 2025. ____________________________
Jackie Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

18.B.

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
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 23rd day of September, 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

18.B.

Memorandum: Finance Division
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Tiffany Barnett, Administrative Services Director
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: Item 17.B A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Services Between the City of Hemet and 4Leaf, Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount for Fiscal Year 2025-26 from $50,000 to $100,000, and Authorizing the Administrative Services Director to Record a Supplemental Appropriation of $70,000 in the General Fund
Staff recommends the replacement of the published Staff Report with the attached and revised Staff Report, Resolution, and Agreement for enhanced transparency of intent and purpose of the proposed amendment.

Meeting: City Council Meeting - Sep 23 2025
Department: Fire Department
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Ryan Webb, Deputy Fire Chief;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Services Between the City of Hemet and 4Leaf, Increasing the Not-To-Exceed Amount for Fiscal Year 2025-26 from $50,000 to $100,000, and Authorizing the Administrative Services Director to Record a Supplemental Appropriation of $70,000 in the General Fund It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, approving the second amendment to the agreement for services between the City of Hemet and 4Leaf, increasing the notto-exceed amount for Fiscal Year 2025-26 from $50,000 to $100,000 and authorizing the Administrative Services Director to record a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $70,000 in the General Fund.

After conducting a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the City of Hemet entered into an agreement with 4Leaf, not to exceed $30,000 per fiscal year, for supplemental plan review and inspection services effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028 with two one-year options to extend.

Through the fiscal year 2025-26 Budget adoption process, appropriations were established in the amount of $30,000 for these services.

Due to an unanticipated vacancy of a Fire Prevention Officer, the City executed an amendment to the agreement on the First Amendment to the 4Leaf agreement concluded on July 29, 2025, increasing the not-to-exceed fiscal year amount from $30,000 to $50,000. No additional appropriations were not allocated at that time.

The proposed recommended second amendment to the 4Leaf agreement is will increasing increase the not-to-exceed amount from $50,000 to $100,000 to support the continuation of services while City of Hemet
CityCouncilMeeting

STAFF REPORT
TITLE:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

BACKGROUND:

ANALYSIS:

actively recruiting to fill (1) the Fire Prevention Officer vacancy.

The second amendment to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $50,000 to $100,000 is to be effective for the remainder of fiscal year 2025-26. Effective July 1, 2026, the fiscal year not-to-exceed amount will revert back to $50,000 for the duration of the agreement.

DISCUSSION:

The Fire Prevention Division requires plan review and inspection services to process new construction projects and permits that are submitted daily to the city. With current limited staffing and an increase in inspection activity, the Fire Department is requesting recommending the use of contractual to continue to contract external services to move theadvance inspections and permit issuances forward. The sThe scope of services will include plan review, field inspection, policy development, development review meetings, and Fire Code amendments. This proposed amendment will allow for continuous and uninterrupted services for the developers, builders, and residents. Additionally, the Hemet Fire Department is mandated by the State of California to complete inspections of occupancies that have a high life-loss potential. Continuation of this contract will ensure these inspections are being completed.

Going into fiscal year 2025-26, budget appropriations for 4Leaf services were established at $30,000.

Appropriations of $70,000 are requested When the first amendment was approved July 29, 2025, no additional appropriations were requested at that time. With the proposed second amendment, appropriations in the amount of $70,000 are recommended to support the full-service needs withwith the continuity of plan review and inspection services 4Leaf -– ($20,000 for the first amendment plus $50,000 for the second amendment). This amount of $70,000 will be added to the original fiscal year 2025-26 appropriations of $30,000 for a final appropriation of $100,000 to match the proposed second amendment.

The additional funds will support the contracted staff's hourly rates and will be offset by salary savings from one vacant Fire Prevention Officer position and through fees collected through fire inspections and plan review.

None
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 and reduce blight.

Objective 3: Increase Public Safety visibility and response.

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.

GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.

Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.

Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.

A supplemental appropriation of $70,000 in account 110.07.3225.52400 will be needed required from PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

General Fund reserves which will be offset by salary savings of $38,600 every three months associated with the single vacant Fire Prevention Officer position.

Temporarily suspend fire prevention services.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

Attachment 1 - 4Leaf Supplemental Resolution
Attachment 2 - 4Leaf - Fire Prevention Services - Second Amendment - 2025-089 ATTACHMENT(S):

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEMET, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF HEMET AND 4LEAF

INCREASING THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 FROM $50,000 TO $100,000 AND

RECORDING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $70,000
The City Council of the City of Hemet does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, after conducting a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the City of Hemet entered into an agreement with 4Leaf, not to exceed $30,000 per fiscal year, for plan review and inspection services effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028, with two one-year options to extend, and;
WHEREAS, through the fiscal year 2025-26 Budget adoption process, appropriations were established in the amount of $30,000 for these services, and; WHEREAS, due to unanticipated vacancy of a Fire Prevention Officer, the First Amendment to the 4Leaf agreement concluded on July 29, 2025, increasing the not-toexceed fiscal year amount from $30,000 to $50,000. No additional appropriations were not allocated at that time, and;
WHEREAS, The proposed second amendment to the 4Leaf agreement is increasing the not-to-exceed amount from $50,000 to $100,000 to support the continuation of services while actively recruiting to fill (1) Fire Prevention Officer vacancy, and;
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, the second amendment to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $50,000 to $100,000 is to be effective for the remainder of fiscal year 2025-26. Effective July 1, 2026, the fiscal year not-to-exceed amount will revert back to $50,000 for the duration of the agreement, and:

WHEREAS, the Fire Prevention Division requires plan review and inspection services to process new construction projects and permits that are submitted daily to the city. With current limited staffing and an increase in inspection activity, the Fire Department is requesting to continue to contract external services to move the inspections and permits forward. The services include plan review, field inspection, policy development, development review meetings, and Fire Code amendments. This proposed amendment will allow for continuous and uninterrupted services for the developers, builders, and residents. Additionally, the Hemet Fire Department is mandated by the State of California to complete inspections of occupancies that have a high life-loss potential.

Continuation of this contract will ensure these inspections are being completed, and; WHEREAS, going into fiscal year 2025-26, budget appropriations for 4Leaf services were established at $30,000. When the first amendment was approved July 29, 2025, no additional appropriations were requested at that time. With the proposed second amendment, appropriations in the amount of $70,000 are recommended to support the full-service needs with 4Leaf - $20,000 for the first amendment plus $50,000 for the second amendment. This amount of $70,000 will be added to the original fiscal year 2025- 26 appropriations of $30,000 for a final appropriation of $100,000 to match the proposed second amendment, and;
WHEREAS, the additional funds will support the contracted staff's hourly rates and will be offset by salary savings from one vacant Fire Prevention Officer position and through fees collected through fire inspections and plan review.

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
WHEREAS, the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

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

SECTION 1. ACTIONS.

The City Council approves the second amendment to the agreement with 4Leaf and authorizes the Administrative Service Director to establish appropriations in the General Ledger of $70,000.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Resolution shall become effective on September 23, 2025.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 2025. ____________________________
Jackie Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
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
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 23rd day of September, 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
00091753.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT 2025-089

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF HEMET

A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND
4LEAF, INC.

A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2025
00091753.1 Page | 1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for Fire Prevention Services is made and entered into as of this 23rd day of September, 2025, by and between the City of Hemet (“City”), a California municipal corporation and 4Leaf, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into an agreement entitled “Professional Services Agreement” dated July 1, 2025 (“Agreement”) for the purpose of retaining services of Consultant to provide Fire Prevention Services.

B. Section 4(a) of the Agreement provides that the Compensation shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) per City fiscal year.

C. On July 29, 2025, the First Amendment amended Section 4(a) to provide that the Compensation shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per City fiscal year.

D. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Agreement, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to further increase the not-to exceed compensation amount.

E. This Second Amendment amends section 4(a) to provide that the Compensation for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). For the remainder of the Term following Fiscal Year 2025/2026 the Compensation shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per City fiscal year.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises made and recited herein, the Parties do hereby enter into this Amendment which modifies and amends the Agreement as follows:

1. AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby modified and amended as follows:

1.1 [COMPENSATION]. Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the Not to Exceed Amount to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) in City fiscal year 2025/2026. The remainder of the Term following fiscal year 2025/2026 the compensation shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per City fiscal year.
00091753.1 Page | 2

2. MANDATORY INVOICE INFORMATION/NOTICES.

Consultant shall notify the City in writing whenever it has reason to believe that the costs the Consultant expects to incur under this Agreement in the following sixty (60) days, when added to all costs previously incurred, will exceed eighty percent (80%) of the Not to Exceed Amount specified herein. As part of the notification, the Consultant shall provide the City with a revised estimate of the total cost of performing this Agreement.

On invoices submitted to the City, Consultant shall identify at the top of the first page, the Agreement’s not to exceed amount, the total amount billed to date, the services rendered during the billing period, and the amount due for the statement invoice for which reimbursement is sought in the statement invoice.

3. REMAINDER UNCHANGED. Except as specifically modified and amended in this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and binding upon the Parties.

4. INTEGRATION. This Amendment consists of pages 1 through 3, inclusive, which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements, including written or verbal communications between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the transaction discussed in this Amendment.

5. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Amendment is declared invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Amendment shall not become effective until the date it has been executed by the appropriate authorities of the City and Consultant.

7. APPLICABLE LAW. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Amendment.

8. REFERENCES. All references to the Agreement include all their respective terms and provisions. All defined terms utilized in this Amendment have the same meaning as provided in the Agreement, unless expressly stated to the contrary in this Amendment. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
00091753.1 Page | 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement on the date and year first written above.

CITY OF HEMET
___________________________
Mark Prestwich
City Manager
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK
By: ___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY
By: ____________________________

CONSULTANT
By:

Its:

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail:

Direct Dial: 949.851.5444 File Number: 392499.00005/4897-9580-7591.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Email/U.S. Mail
September 11, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Attn: John Paul Maier, City Clerk
City of Hemet
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Re: Newland Simpson Project
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:

As you know, this office represents Newland Capital Group (“NCG”), the applicant for the proposed Newland Simpson Road Project (“Project”) located on approximately 74.88 acres of land at the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road in the City of Hemet (“City”). The Project, as amended, consists of the development of single, 884,760 square-foot industrial warehouse facility on Parcel 1 (43.47 acres) of the Project site, along with certification of the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120462) (“FEIR”) and the following discretionary entitlements: General Plan Amendment No. GPA 22-003, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 22- 006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38800, Variance No. VAR 24-003, and a Building Height Exception (collectively, the “Project Approvals”). The 18.01 acre Parcel 2 and 8.9 acre Parcel 3 located east of the Warren Road Bridge will be reserved for future commercial/retail development in accordance with their existing General Plan and Zoning designations.

As discussed in detail below, it is clear that two City Councilmembers, Tom Lodge and Connie Howard-Clark, are biased against NCG and the Project, and should not have been permitted to participate in the City Council hearings on the Project or take any action with respect to the Project. Councilmember Howard-Clark sat as a City Planning Commissioner and spoke against and voted to deny the Project at the December 3, 2024, hearing on the Project. Councilmember Lodge, at that time the Councilmember-Elect for District 3, provided public comment at the December 3, 2024, Planning Commission hearing and spoke vehemently against the Project thereby unquestionably disclosing his predisposed opposition to, and bias against, the Project.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

The participation of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark in the City Council hearings of April 8, 2025, May 13, 2025, and July 14, 2025, respectively, unlawfully tainted the City Council’s decision and process on the Project and deprived NCG of its constitutional rights to due process and a fair hearing before an unbiased decisionmaker. Among other things, these actions expose the City to significant damages under Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act, presently estimated to be in excess of $60 million. These damages reflect not only the out-ofpocket entitlement and development costs incurred by NCG and its investor/partner and the proposed tenant for the Project, Rialto Pacific, but also significant consequential and reputational damages arising from the City’s violation of NCG’s constitutionally-protected development rights and interests in the Project. Notably, these damages do not include the losses sustained by the property owner, Lansing Companies, as a result of the City’s actions in what amounts to a de facto taking of the subject property.

In order to avoid the necessity for litigation and the time and expense of pursuing such adversarial proceedings, we strongly advise that the City promptly schedule the Project for a renewed City Council hearing before the remaining unbiased Mayor Peterson and Councilmembers Males and Krupa. In doing so, and given that the Project will provide tremendous public benefits to the City and its residents, NCG requests that the remaining City Council members approve the Project.

1. Executive Summary and Overview.

On July 14, 2025, the City Council voted 3-2 to deny the Project Approvals. At the conclusion of the hearing, Councilmembers Lodge, Howard-Clark and Mayor Peterson voted to deny the Project and Councilmembers Males and Krupa voted to adopt the Project Approvals.

The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention new information that demonstrates an “unacceptable probability” of Councilmember Lodge’s and Councilmember Howard-Clark’s respective predisposition and bias against the Project such that they could not – and cannot – act as “reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer[s]” of the Project. (Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 484.) The effect of Councilmember Lodge’s and Howard-Clark’s biased participation in the April 8, May 13 and July 141 hearings was to deprive NCG of its
fundamental right to a fair hearing and, among other things, violate NCG’s procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Civil Rights Act set forth in 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The pre-hearing statements and actions 1 Note that Councilmember Howard-Clark only participated in the May 13 and July 14, 2025, City Council hearings on the modified Project and was not sitting on the Council for the April 8 meeting. However, prior to her appointment to the Council, Councilmember Howard-Clark was a member of the City Planning Commission and participated in the December 3, 2024, hearing on the Project at which she expressed her outspoken and unquestioned opposition to the Project.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark unquestionably establish the existence of a predisposition, commitment and bias against the Project that tainted the April 8, May 13 and July 14 hearings and, if these Councilmembers are allowed to continue to participate in future meetings, would further taint all future hearings on the Project.

As outlined more fully below, if allowed to stand, the City’s actions in permitting Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark to participate in the April 8, May 13 and July 14 hearings, and if Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark do not recuse themselves and choose to consider and vote on the Project entitlements in any future hearing, will expose the City to significant monetary and other liability, including damages in excess of $60,000,000 as well as the responsibility for all of NCG’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with any resulting litigation.

NCG demands that the City (i) vacate and set aside all action taken to deny the Project entitlements; and (ii) approve the Project after a City Council hearing, without the participation of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark. These steps are necessary to ensure that the City Council hearing on the Project entitlements is not tainted by bias caused by the improper participation of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark in the proceedings.

In the event that the City refuses this demand and declines to conduct a new, fair, and unbiased hearing on the Project consistent with California law, including NCG’s substantive and procedural due process rights under the state and federal constitutions, NCG will have no choice but to proceed with litigation against the City. Please be advised that NCG will assert all available claims, both legal and equitable, and take all actions necessary to protect, preserve, and vindicate NCG’s ownership and development rights in the Property and the Project. NCG strongly urges the City to consider its next steps carefully.

2. California Law Requires Local Governments to Hold Fair Hearings, Without the Participation of Biased Decisionmakers; Failure to Do So is a Constitutional Violation and Requires the Biased Decision Makers to Recuse Themselves.

Under California law, “‘[Q]uasi-judicial’ or ‘administrative’ hearings are subject to the fair process requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b) and, when a vested property or liberty interest is implicated, to the due process requirements of both the federal and state constitutions.” (The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.56 citing Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212.) “The decision-maker must be fair and impartial.” (Id. citing, Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1027 [invalidated city council decision on appeal of land use application when Councilmember appealing planning commission decision showed bias and violated local procedures]; Golden Day Schools v. Dept. of Education (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 695, 709 [“initial decision-maker may not sit on review board”].) “Fair process and due process require Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness.” (Id., citing Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 94 [“due process violation when lawyer, advocate for defendant city, later acted as advisor to the judge of administrative appeal”).

A. Pre-Hearing Comments Can Constitute Evidence of Bias.

Numerous reported decisions have reinforced the long-standing rule that decisionmakers must be unbiased, and that evidence of bias need not only be found based upon a decisionmaker’s conduct at the hearing itself.

As discussed in Nightlife Partners: “Comments made by an agency member before hearing may constitute evidence of an unacceptable probability of actual bias such that the member could not act as a ‘reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer.’” (Id., citing Nasha v.

City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [emphasis added] [unacceptable probability of bias shown where a decisionmaker “advocate[s] a position” for or against a project].) Further, “[a] personal interest or involvement in the outcome of a matter, or with any participant, that is unrelated to the merits requires disqualification.” (The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.167; see Mennig v. City Council (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 341, 351.) While decisionmakers can hold strong feelings about issues or specific projects, “[t]he decisionmaker’s actions, however, must not ‘cross the line into advocacy’ for or against a project.” (Id. [emphasis added], citing Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 974.) Also, there is no requirement of demonstrating actual bias; “it is sufficient to invalidate a decision if ‘an unacceptable probability of actual bias’ by the municipal decision-maker is established.” (Id., citing Woody’s Group, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1022 [emphasis added].) B. Participation by a Biased Decisionmaker Invalidates the Decision.

Even though three City Councilmember votes would be needed to deny the Project Approvals, meaning that Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark themselves could not, and cannot, deny the Project, any decision of the City Council including their participation would be tainted, resulting in invalidation of any action the City Council would take if they participate. “[T]he prehearing bias of one [decision-maker is] enough, by itself, to invalidate [that agency’s] decision.” (Woody’s Group, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.) Where a decision-maker demonstrates an unacceptable probability of bias, the court must set aside the agency’s decision even if the ultimate outcome would have been the same without the biased decision-maker’s participation. (See, e.g., Nasha, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 478, 484 [invalidating 3-1 planning commission decision denying project approval where only one commissioner was biased); Woody’s Group, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1019, 1031-32 [invalidating 4-1 decision denying project approval where only one city Councilmember was biased]; Petrovich, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 971, 976 [invalidating 7-2 decision denying project approval where only one city Councilmember was biased].)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

Thus, due to the bias of both Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark, any decision of the City Council, if they participate in the decision, would be invalid, and as discussed below, would expose the City to liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act.

C. Participation of Biased Decisionmakers Violates an Applicant’s Constitutional Right to Procedural Due Process, Resulting in Liability Under the Federal Civil Rights Act.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....” NCG’s ownership of the project property constitutes a protected property interest within the context of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, sections 7 and 19 of the California Constitution, and compensation must be made for its taking or damaging by a public entity. (Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 571-72.) Thus, NCG’s rights in the property may not be infringed upon without constitutional rights of due process.

Although a decision-maker does not have to be completely indifferent to the general subject matter of the issue or project presented in order to be impartial (Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 781, 790, 171), “‘[a]’fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process...’” (Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1091 [abrogated on unrelated grounds in Griset v. Fair Pol. Pracs. Comm’n (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 698]; Nasha, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 482-483.) A biased decisionmaker is constitutionally unacceptable. “The right to a fair procedure includes the right to impartial adjudicators.” (Rosenblit v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1448.) 42 U.S.C. section 1983 is a statutory mechanism that allows for the recovery of damages by private citizens whose constitutionally protected civil rights and property interests are violated and/or unlawfully infringed upon by the government. Thus, Councilmember Lodge and/or HowardClark’s participation in the prior City Council hearings on the Project or their involvement in any future City Council hearings on the Project will result in a finding that the City, acting under the color of state law, violated NCG’s civil rights under the United States and California Constitutions, and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 by depriving NCG of its fundamental due-process right to a fair hearing before an unbiased decisionmaker. (Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1031, 1034 [“[t]he Due Process Clause is intended to prevent government officials from abusing [their] power or employing it as an instrument of oppression”].)
As a result of the City’s actions in allowing Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark to participate in the April 8, May 13 and July 14 hearings despite the clear and unequivocal evidence of their pre-hearing bias and commitment to oppose the Project (as outlined more fully below), and if Councilmembers Lodge or Howard-Clark participate in any future hearings on the Project, NCG has suffered and will continue to suffer significant monetary damages that, at present, are in excess Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

of $60,000,000. Further, in the event that litigation becomes necessary, please be advised that NCG is and will be entitled to recover all of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the claims. (See 42 U.S.C. § 1988.)
Without question, NCG will exercise all available rights and pursue all available legal and equitable remedies in order to protect, preserve, and defend its rights guaranteed under the U.S. and California constitutions.

2. Councilmember Lodge’s Pre-Hearing Actions Demonstrate Bias, Requiring Invalidation of the July 14 Denial, and Requiring Him to Recuse Himself From All Future Hearings on the Project.

On November 5, 2024, Tom Lodge was elected as the City Councilmember for District 3 with a total of 1,271 votes defeating Malcolm Lilienthal Jr. and Deborah Jackson. The election results were certified and Councilmember Lodge was formally appointed to the City Council at the regularly-scheduled Council meeting held on December 10, 2024.

On December 3, 2024, less than one week earlier and approximately one month after formally becoming the City Councilmember Elect for District 3, the Project was scheduled for hearing before the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was not the final approval authority for the Project and was instead simply a recommending body the opinions and recommendations of which would be taken into consideration by the City Council at a subsequent public meeting. Thus, the Project was always going to be considered by the City Council as the final decisionmaker. Councilmember Lodge unquestionably knew that he would be seated on the City Council at the time that the Project came up for hearing.

Despite knowing that he would be in a position to consider and cast a vote on the Project Approvals as a member of the City Council, and in fact most likely because of this knowledge and fact, Councilmember Lodge appeared at the December 3, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to express his strong and unquestioned opposition to the Project. “Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission, my observations and concerns about the project before you [inaudible] project before you tonight, could just as easily be made by several other proposed projects, proposed warehouse projects, in the City of Hemet. I’m at a loss to understand why the Planning Commission and the City Council weren’t properly briefed on the spirit and mandate of AB 98 months ago. Um… just note that the law was approved by the State Assembly March of 23 nearly a year and a half ago. Anyone paying attention to this major issue concerning many inland cities knew that the Senate and the Governor were going to approve it and we should’ve been paying attention.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

Second, I understand that from… I understand… the EIR for this project was chosen by the developer and most cities the EIR consultant was chosen by the city and was the developer controlling the EIR outcome and was it even reviewed by [this] peers? The average citizen or the Planning Commission should not have to wade through thousands of pages of EIR to understand a millionplus square foot warehouse with hundreds of daily trips of dieselspewing trucks built in the path of the prevailing winds would create adverse impact[sic] on the residential communities downwind.

Finally, I was profoundly disappointed that the only strategic plan goal cited as justification from Staff recommendation of… that was the economic opportunity. No fiscal impact was provided. The Commission needs to place the safety of the existing residents above the economic opportunities provided to warehouses and developers from Orange County. Thank you.”
The statements made by Councilmember Lodge at the December 3, 2024, Planning Commission meeting unquestionably show the existence of an unacceptable probability of bias. For example, in Woody’s Group, the court disregarded a biased councilmember’s “self-serving comment at the hearing” that he had no bias and concluded that he “should not have been part of the body hearing the appeal” at all. (233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1023.) Similarly, in Petrovich Development Co., LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, the court found that a councilmember demonstrated a “prehearing commitment to” vote against a project where the councilmember was “counting – if not securing –votes” against it and stated he was “confident he had a majority” to deny the project. (Petrovich, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 974-75.) In Nasha, supra, the court found that a planning commissioner was biased due to his writing a newsletter, which attacked a project, before the planning commission held a hearing on the project. The court held that the mere preparation of this newsletter constituted bias, requiring the planning commissioner’s recusal. (Nasha, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 484.)
Here, like the councilmember in Petrovich, Councilmember Lodge “took affirmative steps to assist [opponents] of the [project]” by appearing and speaking out on their behalf. In doing so, despite knowing that he would ultimately be sitting as a final decisionmaker on the Project as an elected member of the City Council, Councilmember Lodge acted as an “advocate, not a neutral and impartial decision maker, and should have recused [himself] from voting” at the subsequent City Council hearings on April 8, May 13 and July 14. (Petrovich, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 976.) The outcome of his final vote on the Project was undoubtedly certain; evidence of his predisposition and bias could not be clearer.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

Councilmember Lodge’s statements demonstrate an unacceptable probability of “prehearing bias” that is “enough by itself to invalidate” the City Council’s action and direction at the July 14 hearing. (Woody’s Group, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.) Councilmember Lodge’s failure to recuse himself and his continued participation in the subsequent City Council hearings on the Project, despite his clear and unequivocal pre-hearing bias against the Project, requires the City Council’s actions on July 14, 2025, to be set aside. Further, given his obvious bias, Councilmember Lodge must recuse himself from all future City Council hearings on the Project.

3. Councilmember Howard-Clark’s Pre-Hearing Actions Demonstrate Bias, Requiring Invalidation of the July 14 Denial, and Requiring Her to Recuse Herself From All Future Hearings on the Project.

Unlike Councilmember Lodge, Councilmember Howard-Clark was not formally elected to the City Council by the residents of the City. Rather, the City Council appointed Howard-Clark during the Special City Council meeting held on May 8, 2025, to replace former Mayor Pro Tem Carole Kendrick due to her relocation out of the City of Hemet. Prior to “ascending” to the City Council, Councilmember Howard-Clark was a member of the City Planning Commission and, in particular, was part of the Commission during the December 3, 2024, hearing on the Project.

During that hearing, Councilmember Howard-Clark expressed her strong opposition to the Project (“I can’t handle it!”) and characterized the Project EIR as “flawed” before ultimately voting to not recommend the Project Approvals be adopted by the City Council. After being appointed to the City Council, Councilmember Howard-Clerk was on the dais at the May 13 City Council meeting during which the Council voted to consider the modified Project at a subsequent City Council meeting that was ultimately held on July 14. In response to this proposal, Councilmember Howard-Clark stated, among other things:
“I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now. And I don’t think that the people in my district do either so I cannot support it. If they want to come with something new then you need to start the process all over again. And that’s the way I feel.”
At the final July 14 City Council hearing on the Project, Councilmember Howard-Clark actually trumpeted the fact that she had been sitting on the Planning Commission at the time it considered the Project and
“First of all, I was on the planning commission. And I was one of the 5-0 against. I read everything. I think at the planning commission I even asked, ‘Who ate today? A meal?’ Did anybody eat today? Because we have agriculture that provides what we need and California is slowly decreasing its agriculture. Now, why Hemet? I ask that all the time. Why Hemet? We’ve got Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

warehouses on the highway that are empty. Rialto has, what is that? Highway 15 and 215. That is no problem to get in and out.

I have to get up tomorrow too, because I work. I have a truck coming in at 7:00. He drives in, we unload, and we get it out. So, I’m a worker too. But let me make this very clear. This valley cannot sustain the green gases that will be coming and are coming right now. In the past, since May 19th of this year, we have had 11 days that were not air quality problems. And this month, we have not had 1 day. So I don’t care where you work or where you love or any of that stuff. If it impacts your health, it’s the whole reason my parents moved us out of here in the 60s and the 70s. My great grandfather came into this valley and ran Howard Rose Company and it was an agricultural business.

It was set up as an agricultural town. I can’t help it if the EIR already says that this is not going to work for the greenhouse gases. That’s the way it is. Maybe we need to look to Mt. San Jacinto, which I just started a tour of the other day. Do you know how many opportunities there are for our kids, and for us, to better ourselves? So I’m not in fear of change. The change that I am in fear of is going to be what we cannot undo. And San Jacinto already has nine warehouses. Moreno Valley, it has 1 million square feet of warehouses planned. Now you look at that valley and how it comes, the air comes in. I watch it every day. The smog comes in. It’s the same thing that it was when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s. You can’t put it here against the mountain. We’re all doomed if that goes in, and personally, I don’t want to see it be what it is in the beginning of ‘Welcome to Hemet’. Sorry, it doesn’t work for me, and so…”
As with Councilmember Lodge, Councilmember Howard-Clark’s statements both at the December 3, 2024, Planning Commission hearing and the subsequent May 13 and July 14 City Council hearings on the Project demonstrate an unacceptable probability of “prehearing bias” that is “enough by itself to invalidate” the City Council’s ultimate action at the July 14 hearing. (Woody’s Group, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

6. Conclusion.

In sum, the City’s actions in permitting Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark to participate in the hearings and to consider and vote on the Project entitlements effectively deprived NCG of its fundamental right to a fair hearing and, among other things, violated NCG’s proceduraland substantive-due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Civil Rights Act set forth in 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The pre-hearing statements and actions by Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark unquestionably establish the existence of their predisposition and bias against the Project, the effect of which was to fatally taint the July 14 hearing and, if these Councilmembers are not forced to recuse themselves, would further taint all future hearings on the Project.

For the reasons outlined above, if the actions taken at the July 14 hearing are allowed to stand, the City will be exposed to significant monetary and other liability, including damages in excess of $60,000,000 as well as the responsibility for all of NCG’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with any resulting litigation. NCG demands that the City (i) vacate and set aside all action taken to deny the Project entitlements; and (ii) approve the Project after a City Council hearing, without the participation of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark. These steps are critical to ensuring that the City Council’s consideration of the Project entitlements is fair and not “tainted” by bias attributable to the improper participation of Councilmembers Lodge and Howard-Clark.

In the event that the City refuses this demand and declines to conduct a new, fair, and unbiased hearing on the project consistent with California law, including NCG’s substantive-and procedural-due-process rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions, NCG will not hesitate to proceed with litigation against the City and take all actions necessary to protect, preserve, and vindicate NCG’s development rights in the Property. It remains our sincere hope that such litigation and further adversarial proceedings will not be necessary.

Given the urgency with respect to pending statutes of limitation, we respectfully request that the City respond to this letter with its position by no later than the close of business on Friday September 19, 2025.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter in further detail Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
September 11, 2025

cc: Steven Graham, City Attorney*
Mark Prestwich, City Manager*
Gregory Lansing*
Ezra Danziger*
Client*
(* via e-mail only)
From: Lauren Chechile
To: City Clerk Staff
Subject: Traffic Safety Concerns at Poplar St. and Warren Rd.

Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:17:31 AM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Hemet. Think before you click!
Dear Hemet City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident regarding the dangerous conditions at the intersection of Poplar Street and Warren Road. There have been multiple crashes there recently, including a fatal accident earlier this week.

I respectfully ask the Council to consider adding flashing lights, illuminated stop signs, or other traffic safety measures to help prevent further tragedies. This intersection has become increasingly hazardous, and action is needed to protect drivers and pedestrians.

It is also important to note that the current speed limits along Warren Road were established when the area was primarily farmland. Since then, significant housing developments have been built, bringing far more traffic, residents, and pedestrians to this corridor. The road has not kept pace with these changes, and the high speeds are no longer appropriate for what has become a residential area.

In addition, I would like to request data on how many crashes have occurred on Warren Road in the past 12 months. Having this information available to the public would help residents better understand the scale of the problem and support the case for safety improvements.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and for prioritizing the safety of our community.

Sincerely,
Lauren Chechile
From: City of Hemet
To: John Maier; Elodie Klug; Demi Olsen
Subject: Sep 23 2025 - Alexis Montiel - PC-25-60
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 9:58:30 AM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Hemet. Think before you click!
This is an automated message from City of Hemet.

Please do not respond to this message.

Sender: Demi Olsen, Office Specialist Confidential
Quick Link: Go to Item
Item Information:

Public
Comment
Form
Public Comment Form
Please complete the following
form for your comments or
questions to be included as Public
Comments on an agenda for an
upcoming Meeting.

Please complete the following form for your comments
or questions to be included as Public Comments on an
agenda for an upcoming Meeting.

Name: Alexis Montiel
Email
Address
Phone:

Meeting Date You Wish to Make
Your Public Comment: Sep 23 2025
View Meeting Schedule View Meeting Schedule
Do you wish to speak live in the
meeting? Yes
If so, how will you be joining? N/A (not joining live)
Agenda Item or Subject: Non-Adgneda Item
Comment or Question:

As a homeowner, why am I now being asked to do street
improvement when the plans have been approved
without comment four years ago. After all this time, I am now having to complete additional work to get an
encroachment permit.

Reviewed by Administration?
AT Item Number: PC-25-60
Notes Other:

Meeting Type:

Meeting:

Agenda Section:

Contact Us

DZIDA, CAREY
& STEINMAN

A LAW CORPORATION

DIANE P. CAREY
CHRISTINE E. DUNFEY
STEVEN J. DZIDA
HELEN LUC O’BRIEN
JAY R. STEINMAN
GREGORY N. WEILER
Gregory N. Weiler
Direct Dial:

E-mail:

Matter: 31140-0001
5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 550, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
TELEPHONE (949) 399-0360 ♦ FACSIMILE (949) 399-0361
September 23, 2025
Hemet City Council
445 E. Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Re: Tentative Parcel Map 38430, Ramona Plaza
Appeal to City Council, September 23, 2025, Condition 22 Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

I am writing on behalf of the Applicant to formally object to condition 22 imposed on the approval of the above captioned tentative subdivision map and project. Specifically, the tentative map condition requiring undergrounding of utilities or the payment of an In Lieu fee relating thereto as required by Hemet ordinance. Such condition is constitutionally and statutorily infirm because it fails to satisfy the requirements of both the United States and California Constitutions, as well as the California Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000- 66025).

As the United States Supreme Court has made clear in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, any condition imposed on a land use approval must bear: (1) An “essential Nexus” to a legitimate governmental interest, and (2) a “rough proportionality” between the burden imposed, and the development’s actual impacts.

California courts have adopted and enforce these constitutional standards. In Erlich v.

City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, the California Supreme Court held that conditions attached to development approvals must satisfy the Nollan/Dolan tests. Additionally, the California Mitigation Fee Act codifies this principle by requiring that any fee, dedication or action imposed as a condition of development approval demonstrate a “reasonable relationship“ to the type and extent of the impact caused by the project (Gov. Code § 66001). The California Supreme Court reaffirmed this requirement in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643.

The challenged condition fails these tests. The City has not demonstrated the required Nexus or proportionality between the proposed subdivision condition requiring undergrounding of utilities because the subdivision and project does not impact utility usage in any manner (does Hemet City Council
September 23, 2025

not increase, expand or intensify such usage), nor has the City made the findings or provided the substantial evidence required under Gov. Code § 66001 to establish that the condition is reasonably related, in nature and extent, to any actual project impacts. Absent such justification, the condition constitutes an unconstitutional action, a statutory violation and an unlawful taking without just compensation. The lack of necessary nexus is supported by the utility analysis conducted by the City Staff included in the staff report and application, and summarized in the September 22, 2025 letter delivered to the Council by Hillwig Goodrow addressing the impacts of the project and lack of nexus.

We note that the Staff Report never addresses the basis of this Appeal or the lack of essential nexus.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the City to remove condition 22 from the Planning Commission approved conditions of approval.

Please cause this writing and objection to be included in the administrative record for this project.

The undersigned will be present at your hearing if you have any further questions.

Very truly yours,
Gregory N. Weiler
Gregory N. Weiler
GNW:lap
881688.1
cc: Layla A. Sarwari, Esq. (via email)