Hemet City Council
March 10, 2026

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 52
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings: The Cultural Resources Study, included as Appendix F to the Draft EIR, prepared for the Project included an archaeological records search that was completed at the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center (UCR-EIC). The records search indicated that 45 cultural resources have been recorded within 1-mile of the Project area, with none of the previously recorded resources occurring onsite. Furthermore, the cultural resources survey conducted found no existing archaeological resources at the site. However, due to the number of previously identified resources within 1-mile of the Project site, there is a potential for previously unknown archaeological resources to be below the site soil surface that could be impacted during construction activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been included to require a qualified professional archeologist to prepare and implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP). In addition, the Project shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires preparation of a Final Monitoring Report. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, and the policies of the General Plan, impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Hemet Planning Division that a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s PQS for Archaeology (as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61) has been retained to prepare a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (CRMP) and to conduct monitoring of rough grading activities.

The CRMP shall be developed in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) and address the details of all activities and provides procedures that must be followed in order to reduce the impacts to cultural, tribal cultural and historic resources to a level that is less than significant as well as address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources associated with this project. The Archaeologist shall conduct Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe(s) Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session shall focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in such an event.

The retained Qualified archeologist and Consulting Trib(s) representative shall attend the pregrade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

In the event that a resource is inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall be halted within 60 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist.

Construction activities can continue in other areas. If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 and 15126.4 in consultation with the City. Per CEQA Guidelines Section § 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section § 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be required at the developer/applicant’s expense. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to consulting tribe(s) for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 53
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Monitoring Report. A final monitoring report shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The final monitoring report(s) created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe(s).

Impact Finding CUL-3: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7).

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has not been previously used as a cemetery based on the historical background of the site provided in the Cultural Resources Study. Thus, human remains are not anticipated to be uncovered during Project construction. However, most land within the southern California region has potential to uncover remains as most of the region was populated with native tribes. In addition, California Health and Safety Code Section § 7050.5, CEQA Section § 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section § 5097.98, included as Mitigation Measure CUL-3, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains.

Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section § 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section § 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 and the policies of the General Plan, impacts from development of the Project on human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. a. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), and work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100-foot perimeter of the discovery.

The area shall be protected; Project personnel/observers would be restricted. The County Coroner shall be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code § 7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. No photographs shall be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).
b. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.
c. The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 54
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98
d. If the Morongo Band of Mission Indians has been named the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial shall not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations shall be determined by the Tribe’s Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the landowner, and the City Planning Division.

Cultural Resources Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to cultural resources. A less than significant impact would occur with incorporation of mitigation (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-42).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Historic Resource
Record searches and field surveys determined the absence of historical resources within or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, Project implementation would have no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources, and cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur.

Archeological Resources
Construction activities within the Project site, as with other development projects in the region, may uncover subsurface prehistoric archaeological resource that meet the CCR § 15064.5 definition.

However, mitigation has been included to reduce the potential of the Project result in an impact to an archaeological resource that could contribute to a significant cumulative impact. With compliance with project-specific mitigation, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulatively considerable impact.

Disturbance of Human Remains
Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines Section § 15064.5 would assure that the Project, in addition to all development projects, treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful, and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. With compliance with applicable guidelines, cumulative impacts related to the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: As listed previously.

D. Geology and Soils
Impact Finding GEO-6: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-12).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 55
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings: Earthmoving activities, including grading and trenching activities, have the potential to disturb previously unknown paleontological resources. The Paleontological Assessment (Appendix I to the Draft EIR) describes that the Project site is underlain by Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial fan sediments which are further underlain by late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits. Due to the occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments across the Inland Empire, the sediments underlying the Project site are considered as having high paleontological sensitivity (Appendix I to the Draft EIR).

Various mammalian fossils had been discovered within 2 miles of the Project site (Appendix I to the Draft EIR). Based on the presence of nearby significant fossil localities, the underlying Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits mapped at the Project site are considered to have a high potential to yield significant paleontological resources. As such, the Paleontological Assessment (Appendix I) concluded that the Project site has a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. As a result, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 is included to require preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). With implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City, or City designee, from a professional paleontologist, stating that a qualified paleontologist (who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s (SVP, 2020) definition for qualified profession paleontologist) has been retained to provide services for the proposed Project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite. The PRIMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval.

The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Hemet Planning Division, or designee, shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans specify the requirements herein related to the PRIMP and the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources.

The PRIMP shall also require that in areas mapped as late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at the surface. In areas mapped as Holocene to late Pleistocene young alluvial valley deposits, monitoring shall be conducted full-time in undisturbed alluvium starting at a depth of five feet below the surface during grading or excavation activities. In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered pursuant to the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2020).

Criteria for discarding specific fossil specimens shall be made explicit in the PRIMP. If the qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by Project construction, then recovery techniques shall be applied. Actions include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring construction activities and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning,

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 56
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.

If no institution accepts the fossil(s), they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository and/or school. A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the City, or City designee. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Hemet Planning Division, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

Paleontological Resources Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to paleontological resources. A less than significant impact would occur with incorporation of mitigation (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-13).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is underlain by deep sediments that are sensitive to paleontological resources. However, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1 and compliance with City General Plan policies, which protect paleontological resources from loss or destruction and require that new development include appropriate mitigation to preserve the quality and integrity of these resources, avoid them when possible, and salvage and preserve them if avoidance is not possible. These measures would reduce the potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure PAL-1: As listed previously.

E. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Finding TCR-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historic resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(K) (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-4).

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings: The City sent letters to Native American representatives identified by NAHC, notifying them of the proposed Project in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52.

The City consulted with each tribe that requested consultation. During the course of the tribal consultation process, no Native American tribe provided the City with substantial evidence indicating that tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section § 21074, are present on the Project site or have been found previously on the Project site. However, due to the Project site’s location in an area where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground disturbing construction activities. As such, Project-specific Mitigation Measures TCR-1and TCR-2 would be implemented, which require tribal monitoring by one of the consulting Tribes and measures for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. With implementation of General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, and TCR-2, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 57
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, or Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) for the Project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all grounddisturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground-disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60-foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The Archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the consulting Tribe[s], and the Tribal Monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Tribal Monitor[s] and shall be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

A. Full avoidance.

B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

C. If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

D. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (CFR 79.1) Impact Finding TCR-2: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, that considers the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-5).

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of Findings: None of the Native American tribes contacted by the City provided substantial evidence indicating that tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 58
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Section 21074, are present on the Project site or have been found previously on the Project site.

The Project site contains no known resources significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section § 5024.1 However, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 and TCR-1 and TCR-2 are included such that an archaeological and Native American monitor to be present for all ground disturbing activities to monitor for any unexpected resources that may be unearthed during ground disturbing activities. With implementation of the General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, and TCR-2, impacts to a tribal cultural resource would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 5.5 of the Draft EIR, Cultural Resources, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during grading or soil disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section § 7050.5 Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section § 5097.98, included as Mitigation Measure CUL-3 as requested by the Tribes listed above) would provide that any potential impacts to human remains and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement. As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. As listed previously.

Tribal Cultural Resources Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to tribal cultural resources. A less than significant impact would occur with incorporation of mitigation (Draft EIR at p. 5.16-6).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project’s potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to tribal cultural resources were analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in the influence areas of the tribes in the region. There is potential for tribal cultural resources to be uncovered during construction activities from the Project. Other development projects within the region would have a similar potential to uncover tribal cultural resources. Cumulative impacts could be reduced by each development project’s compliance with applicable regulations, consultations required by AB 52, SB 18, and project-specific mitigation. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL1 through CUL-3 and Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-2 would reduce Project-level impacts to less than significant, and the Project’s contribution for cumulatively significant impacts on inadvertent discoveries on tribal cultural resources would also be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement. As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. As listed previously.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 59
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION V

RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Public Resources Code section §21002 states that “it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” Section §15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible measures outlined in the Final EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite these significant and unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of the benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein.

A. Agriculture and Forestry
Impact Finding AG-1: The Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-7).

Facts in Support of Findings: According to the FMMP, the Project site contains approximately 9.2 acres of Prime Farmland and 63.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on Figure

5.2-1 of the Draft EIR. The entirety of the Project site, with the exception of offsite roadways, is utilized for farming of row crops. Project implementation would cause the conversion of 73.1 acres of farmland designated as Prime Farmland as well as Farmland of Statewide Importance and reduction in overall acreage of agricultural lands within the City. According to the LESA Model Significance thresholds (Appendix B to the Draft EIR), sites receiving a score of between 40 and 59 points are considered significant only if both the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment weighted factor subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. Both the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment subscores for the proposed Project exceed 20 points. Therefore, the Project’s conversion of the site’s Farmlands to nonagricultural uses is considered significant.

There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the Project’s conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. Retention of onsite agricultural uses would be infeasible as it would prevent the development of onsite buildings, which would inhibit implementation of the Project as a whole. Replacement of agricultural resources offsite would be infeasible as creation of new farmland-status properties within the City is outside of the Applicant control. Additional offsite mitigation would be infeasible as it would require the Applicant to purchase replacement acreage for farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland; however, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts as the Project parcels have no relationship to the loss of agricultural lands within the City or County.

Overall, no feasible mitigation measures exist which would substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 60
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Impact Finding AG-5: The Project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of Forest land to non-forest use (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: Project implementation would result in the conversion of farmland onsite to nonagricultural use and could facilitate the conversion of existing farmland within the vicinity to nonagricultural use. The Project’s zone of influence pursuant to the LESA model includes land within a one-quarter mile radius of the Project site (Appendix B to the Draft EIR). Outside of the Project site, within the Project’s zone of influence per the LESA model, approximately 326.2 acres are designated as Prime Farmland and approximately 253.9 acres are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance. While these lands are currently utilized for agricultural production, they are designated for future development by the City of Hemet General Plan with land use designations of Mixed Use and Low Density Residential. Nevertheless, the Project site and surrounding areas are currently under agricultural production and development of the site could result in an increased development pressure on the surrounding agricultural sites. Therefore, there is the potential that the Project would influence the conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use. As a result, the Project would indirectly cause changes in the environment that would convert other farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, impacts related to the conversion of farmland would be significant.

Agriculture and Forestry Cumulative Finding: The Project would have a cumulatively adverse impact related to agriculture and forestry. A significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.2- 10).

Facts in Support of Findings: Continued conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City and the County region. The overall decrease in farmland within the City was identified as a significant cumulative impact in the General Plan EIR. According to the City of Hemet General Plan EIR, the only agricultural land that would not be converted to nonagricultural uses would be approximately 2,614 acres designated for Agriculture or Open Space by the General Plan, located primarily within the eastern portion of the City (Hemet, 2012a). Although the site is designated for non-agricultural uses by the General Plan, implementation of the Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural uses and farmland within the region and would cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to agricultural would be significant and unavoidable.

There are no forest resources or woodland vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the Project site and limited lowland woodlands within the peripheries of the City. Project implementation would not directly impact forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to forest resource impacts.

B. Greenhouse Gases
Impact Finding GHG-1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, in a way that would have a significant impact on the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.8- 11).

Facts in Support of Findings: Long-term operations of uses proposed by the Project would generate GHG emissions from the following primary sources: area source, energy source, mobile source, on-site cargo handling equipment, stationary source, water supply, treatment and distribution, and solid waste emissions.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 61
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
The Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix J to the Draft EIR) describes the GHG emissions to be generated from the proposed Project at buildout are primarily associated with non-construction related mobile sources, such as vehicle and truck trips. The annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 5.8-2 of the Draft EIR. As shown, construction and operation of the Project would generate a net total of approximately 10,362.39 MTCO2e per year, thereby exceeding the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.

Mitigation Measures GHG-1 though GHG-10 aims to reduce the Project's GHG emissions. However, there is no way to quantify the reductions from implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10 in the CalEEMod. Although it is likely that with implementation of all the measures would decrease Project emissions, in order to provide a conservative evaluation of Project impacts, no reductions in emissions are assumed to occur. Further, there are no feasible Project measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 79 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Under the proposed Project, neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Hemet) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating all light bulbs and light features within the Project are Energy Star certified.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide water efficient toilets (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm]).

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide waterless urinals).

Mitigation Measure GHG-4: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Hemet with sufficient evidence demonstrating the building will provide water efficient faucets (1.28 gpm).

Mitigation Measure GHG-5: Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas of the warehouse portion of the Project that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.

Mitigation Measure GHG-6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City with an onsite signage program that clearly identifies the required onsite circulation system. This shall be accomplished through posted signs and painting on driveways and internal roadways.

Mitigation Measure GHG-7: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall confirm that signs clearly identifying approved truck routes have been installed on Simpson Road and Warren Road.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 62
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Mitigation Measure GHG-8: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant shall install a sign on the property with telephone, email, and regular mail contact information for a designated representative of the tenant who would receive complaints about excessive noise, dust, fumes, or odors. The sign shall also identify contact data for the City for perceived Code violations.

The tenant’s representative shall keep records of any complaints received and actions taken to communicate with the complainant and resolve the complaint. The tenant’s representative shall endeavor to resolve complaints within 72 hours.

Mitigation Measure GHG-9: All on-site outdoor cargo-handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on-site equipment) shall be electric or nondiesel fueled. All on-site indoor forklifts shall be powered by electricity.

Mitigation Measure GHG-10: Prior to tenant occupancy for each building/occupancy, each owner/tenant shall develop a use/occupant-specific transportation demand management (TDM) program. The TDM program shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and City Building & Safety Division for review and approval as part of tenant improvements plan(s) documentation.

Recommended California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) TDM program elements are listed below:
• Provide pedestrian and bicycle network improvements within the development connecting to existing off-site facilities.
• Where applicable ensure design of key intersections and roadways encourage the use of walking, biking and where applicable transit.
• Commute trip reduction (CTR) programs offered to encourage the use of vanpools, carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Provide CTR program marketing including information sharing and marketing to promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location. • CTR programs may also provide for alternative work or compressed work schedules to reduce the number of days an employee commutes to work.
• Provision of on-site facilities to provide end of trip services for bicycling such as secure bike parking and storage lockers.
• Provide reserved preferential parking spaces for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero emission vehicles.

Impact Finding GHG-2: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR at p. 5.8-13).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022). As detailed in Table 5.8-3 of the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies related to GHGs.

The City of Hemet Climate Action Plan (CAP) addresses GHG reduction through 2020. As the Project’s Opening Year is 2026 and because the City’s CAP has not been updated to reflect post2020 targets, in order to provide a conservative analysis, the Project would result in a significant impact related to potential conflict with the CAP as the City’s CAP needs to be updated to address post-2020 GHG reduction targets. The specific measures to determine consistency with the post2020 GHG reduction targets are unknown at this time. Furthermore, as analyzed under the GHG technical analysis for the proposed Project under Draft EIR Section 5.8 GHG Emissions, despite the

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 63
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 through GHG-10, the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact from GHG emissions exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. Overall, the proposed Project would result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs as it would conflict with the City of Hemet CAP, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-4: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-5: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-6: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-7: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-8: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-9: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-10: As listed previously.

Greenhouse Gases Cumulative Finding: The Project would have a cumulatively adverse impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. A cumulatively significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p.

5.8-16).

Facts in Support of Findings: The analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section § 15183.5(b) states that compliance with GHG related plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. As described previously, the estimated GHG emissions from development and operation of the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10, impacts would remain significant. Therefore, the Project would result in cumulatively considerable GHG impacts and cumulative GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-4: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-5: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-6: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-7: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-8: As listed previously.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 64
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Mitigation Measure GHG-9: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure GHG-10: As listed previously.

C. Noise
Impact Finding NOI-1: The Project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards or other agencies (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-17).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Construction equipment typically would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that, when combined can reach high noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment range from approximately 68 dBA Leq to 81 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the noise source, as shown on Table 5.12-3 of the Draft EIR and are provided in Appendix M to the Draft EIR. As shown on Table 5.12-4 of the Draft EIR, construction noise from the Project at the nearby receiver locations would range from 38.6 to 50.5 dBA Leq. As detailed in Table 5.12-5 of the Draft EIR, the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. In addition, Chapter 30, Article II, Section 30-32(33) of the Hemet Municipal Code permits construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May. Construction activity is not permitted on Sundays. Exceptions to these standards may be granted only by the City building official and/or the City Council. Construction occurring consistent with these provisions is exempt from regulation. The proposed Project’s construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations. Thus, the construction activities would be in compliance with the City’s constructionrelated noise standards. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Off-Site Roadway and Utility Improvements
It is expected that the off-site construction activities would not take place at any one location for the entire duration of construction due to the nature of the linear construction activity. Construction noise from this off-site work would, therefore, be relatively short-term and would only last for 14 months and the noise levels would be reduced as construction work moves linearly along the selected alignment and farther from sensitive uses. Therefore, due to the temporary nature of Project construction, impacts related to the construction of off-site roadway and utility improvements would be less than significant. However, in order to further reduce noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors, the Project would implement Project Design Features (PDFs) NOI-1 through NOI-7 standard best management practices as Project Design Features.

Nighttime Concrete Pour
As shown on Draft EIR Table 5.12-6, concrete pouring activities would range from 31.1 to 35.2 dBA Lmax at the nearby receiver locations and would occur at the beginning of building construction.

Chapter 30, Article II, Section 30-32(33) of the Hemet Municipal Code permits construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May (included as PPP NOI-1). Since the nighttime concrete pours would take place outside the permitted time

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 65
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
allowed in the City, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Hemet.

With the authorization from the City of Hemet, the nighttime concrete pour activities would satisfy the 70 dBA Leq nighttime residential noise level threshold at all the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, impacts from nighttime concrete pouring activities onto nearby receptors would be less than significant.

Operation
To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the proposed warehouse buildings would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse uses, the business operations of the proposed Project would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking and loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The Project site is located within the vicinity of existing residences, which are sensitive receivers, located at approximately 930 feet to the southeast of the Project site. The locations of operational noise sources are shown in Figure 5.12-5 of the Draft EIR.

Operational Noise Standard Compliance. Table 5.12-9 of the Draft EIR shows that these operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior noise level standards at all nearby sensitive receiver locations located between 930 and 1,834 feet away from the Project site. Thus, operational impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Level Increases. The difference between the combined Project operational and ambient noise levels describes the noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment.

As indicated on Tables 5.12-10 through 5.12-11, the increase in noise would range from 0.0 to 0.2 dBA Leq, which would not generate a significant daytime or nighttime operational noise level increase at the nearby receiver locations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
The proposed Project would generate traffic-related noise from operations. To identify the potential of traffic from the proposed Project to generate noise impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix N of the Draft EIR. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.

Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Level Increases. Table 5.12-15 of the Draft EIR shows the Opening Year with Project conditions would range from 67.6 to 73.5 dBA CNEL. Table 5.12-17 of the Draft EIR shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to

3.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.12- 4 of the Draft EIR, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience potentially significant Project-related traffic noise level impacts at three road segments: Warren Road south of Stetson Avenue and Mustang Way road segments and Simpson Road east of the SR79 road segment .

To reduce the potentially significant Project traffic noise level increases on these three road segments, potential noise reducing actions associated with truck traffic, including rubberized asphalt hot mix pavement and off-site noise barriers, were analyzed. However, the use of rubberized asphalt or off-site noise barriers would not effectively reduce the off-site traffic noise-level increases at the adjacent land uses to the impact roadway segments. Although the following PDFs would be implemented, the Project’s off-site traffic noise level increases at adjacent noise sensitive land uses would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 66
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP NOI-1: Construction Noise. Chapter 30, Article II, Section 30-32(33) of the Hemet Municipal Code permits construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May. Exceptions to these standards may be granted only by the City building official and/or the City Council. Construction occurring consistent with these provisions is exempt from regulation.

Project Design Features (PDFs):

PDF NOI-1: All construction activities shall comply with HMC Section 30-32[a][43], restricting construction activities to the approved hours of construction as set forth on a permit or other city entitlement as issued by the City’s building official, Planning Commission, or City Council, or as otherwise prohibited by the Hemet Building Code.

PDF NOI-2: Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards).

PDF NOI-3: All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that the emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receivers.

PDF NOI-4: Construction equipment staging areas shall be located at the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receivers.

PDF NOI-5: The construction contractor shall limit equipment and material deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment.

PDF NOI-6: Electrically powered air compressors and similar power tools shall be used, when feasible, in place of diesel equipment.

PDF NOI-7: No music or electronically reinforced speech from construction workers shall be allowed.

Noise Cumulative Finding: The Project would have a cumulatively adverse impact related to noise.

A significant cumulative impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-35).

Facts in Support of Findings: Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in the city.

However, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article II, Section 30-32(33) permits construction activities between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May (included as PPP NOI-1). As shown on Figure 5-1 and listed Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR, there are no cumulative projects adjacent to or within hearing distance of the Project site. The closest cumulative project is Rancho Diamonte II, which proposes 145 dwelling units on 4.1-acres approximately 0.55 miles north of the Project site along Sanderson Avenue. Construction activities for this Project would also be required to adhere to Municipal Code construction noise regulations.

Thus, construction noise and vibration levels from the Project would not combine to become cumulatively considerable, and cumulative noise and vibration impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area analyzed in Appendix N to the Draft EIR. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project were identified previously in Table 5.11-17. As shown, cumulative development

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 67
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
along with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 3 dBA CNEL.

As the increase is above the 1.5 dBA threshold for those roadway segments and would double under the proposed Project, even with the implementation of PDFs NOI-1 through NOI-7, cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

D. Transportation
Impact Finding TR-2: The Project conflicts or is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision 9B) regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-16).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not meet Screening Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the City of Hemet’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines VMT screening thresholds.

Therefore, a VMT Analysis was prepared for the Project and is included herein as Appendix P to the Draft EIR. The existing baseline VMT/Service Population is 24.3 VMT/Service Population. A project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact it the project VMT exceeds 24.3 VMT/Service Population. As shown in Table 5.15-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project VMT/Service Population would be 29.5 VMT/Service Population or 21.6 percent above the City’s threshold under baseline conditions and 27.6 VMT/Service Population or 13.6 percent above the City’s threshold under cumulative conditions. Therefore, Project VMT impacts would be significant. The City of Hemet Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA & VMT lists examples of mitigation options for reducing impacts related to VMT. Considering the measures recommended by City’s guideline, individual Project mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate the Project specific VMT impacts. Here, proposed mitigation measures and the effectiveness of such mitigation measures were determined using the methodology provided in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (hereafter CAPCOA Guidance). Two out of 34 VMT reduction measures were determined to be applicable to the proposed Project California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) measure T-6 requires implementation of a commute trip reduction project; and CAPCOA measure T-18 requires provision of pedestrian improvements, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions. With compliance with existing rules, and implementation of CAPCOA measures T-6 and T-18 that are included as Mitigation Measure GHG-10 and Project Design Feature TR-1, the Project VMT would be reduced by 13.82 percent. Despite this reduction, the Project VMT would continue to exceed the baseline threshold. As the Project transit analysis zone’s (TAZ’s) VMT/SP is over 15 percent above the City baseline, there is no feasible way to fully reduce VMT to a level that is less than significant.

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

Project Design Features (PDFs):

PDF TR-1: Sidewalks. The Project would construct sidewalks along the Project’s frontage on Simpson Road and Warren Road.

Mitigation Measures:

MM GHG-10: As listed previously.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 68
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 69
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION VI

RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section § 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss “any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if one of the following scenarios is involved:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. • Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project results in the wasteful use of energy).

The Project would result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes:
• Land in the Project site would be committed to industrial warehousing uses once the proposed buildings are constructed. Secondary effects associated with this irreversible commitment of land resources include:
o Changes in views associated with construction of the new buildings and associated development (Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics)
o Increased vehicle miles traveled on area roadways (Draft EIR Section 5.15, Transportation). o Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions associated with Project construction and operation (Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project due to the use of automobiles, trucks, lighting, heating, and cooling systems, appliances, etc. (Draft EIR Section 5.6, Energy). o Increased ambient noise associated with an increase in activities and traffic from the Project (Draft EIR Section 5.12, Noise).
o The Project would result in conversion of the Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses (Draft EIR Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry).

Construction of the proposed Project as described in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, would require the use of energy produced from non-renewable resources and construction materials. With regard to energy usage from the proposed Project, as demonstrated in the analyses contained in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR, Energy, the proposed Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of non-renewable resources, and conservation efforts would be enforced during construction and operation of proposed development. The proposed development would incorporate energygenerating and conserving Project design features, including those required by the California Building Code, California Energy Code Title 24, which specify green building standards for new developments. In addition, as listed in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project would include sustainability features via Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-10 that would result in additional energy-efficiency.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 70
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 71
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION VII

RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS AND COMMITMENT OF

RESOURCES
Draft EIR Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to affect economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Impact Growth-1 Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing (Draft EIR at p. 6-2). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would require approximately 250 construction workers and 1,158 operational employees. The Project would not directly result in population growth, as it does not propose the construction of housing units. The resulting operational employees may indirectly foster population growth; however, it would not be unexpected and would not constitute substantial unplanned growth.

According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the City of Hemet is projected to increase its population by 52 percent and its housing stock by 79 percent by 2045 at an annual population growth rate of 1.79 percent (between 2016 and 2045). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to increase by 85 percent by 2045 or 2.93 percent annually.

As shown in Table 5.13-3 of the Draft EIR, employment in the City of Hemet is expected to increase by 19,074 jobs between 2021 and 2045. Based on these growth projections, full buildout of the Project would represent approximately 6.1 percent of projected employment growth within the City of Hemet.

Because it is anticipated that most of the future employees from implementation of the Project would already be living in the Inland Empire area, including both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities would not induce substantial growth in the area and cause the need for additional housing.

The City of Hemet has had unemployment rates ranging between 5.1 and 20.2 percent from 2014 to 2024, and most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Hemet and surrounding communities. In addition, the City of Hemet had a housing vacancy rate of 7.5 percent (2,730 housing units) in 2023 so if a portion of employees do relocate from outside the City, there is sufficient housing in the City (DOF, 2023). Thus, the Project would not result in the influx of new labor to serve the increased economic activities that would result from implementation of the Project.

Impact Growth-2 Finding: The Project would not remove obstacles to growth (Draft EIR at p. 6-4).

Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: As described in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, Project Description, the Project includes various roadway improvements to accommodate the safe passage and turning movements of the vehicles that would access the site on Simpson Road and Warren Road. The Project does not propose roadway extensions into new undeveloped areas that would allow for additional growth and development.

The Project site is currently served by existing water and storm drain facilities within Simpson Road.

The Project also proposes installation of new potable water lines, irrigation lines, sewer lines, and

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 72
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
stormwater drainage facilities on the site that would connect to surrounding, existing infrastructure in Simpson Road and Warren Road in order to accommodate the demands of the Project. The Project would also install a 24-inch sewer line in Simpson Road that would connect to the existing sewer line west of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not expand sewer services into unplanned areas. The proposed infrastructure improvements have been designed to serve only the demands of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant growth inducing impacts.

Impact Growth-3 Finding: The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 6-4). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would slightly increase the demand for fire protection and emergency response and police protection due to the increase in development and people at the Project site. However, as described in Section 5.15, Public Services, the proposed Project would not require development of additional facilities or expansion of existing facilities to maintain existing levels of service for public services. Based on service ratios and build out projections within the General Plan, the proposed Project would not create a demand for services beyond the capacity of existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have significant growth inducing consequences that would require the need to expand public services to maintain desired levels of service.

Impact Growth-4 Finding: The Project would not encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively (Draft EIR at p. 6-4). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Development of the Project site may place further development pressure on areas to the north, west, east, and south, which are mostly undeveloped and utilized for agricultural purposes. However, the proposed Project site has been long planned for urban uses by the General Plan. Areas surrounding the Project site that are not publicly owned are planned for growth by the City of Hemet General Plan and are designated for future Mixed Use and LowDensity Residential development. Therefore, the area is planned for the increase in mixed use development and the Project would not result in any additional impacts on the environment other than what has been forecasted under the City’s General Plan. The Project would not individually or cumulatively encourage or facilitate substantial unplanned growth.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 73
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION VIII

RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City of Hemet hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR and described below. Section § 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Objectives
The following objectives have been identified in order to aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and its associated environmental impacts. • To make efficient use of underutilized property in the City of Hemet by adding to its potential for employment-generating uses in order to attract new businesses and promote economic growth.
• To reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the Project vicinity to work.
• To develop an underutilized property to host a variety of industrial uses permissible under the current zoning code and help meet demand for businesses in the Inland Empire. • To develop a new industrial project that is located along, and would utilize, a major truck route to limit truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. • To develop an underutilized property consistent with the current zoning that is conveniently located in proximity to the State Route (SR) 74 and State Route (SR) 79 and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within southern California.

Alternatives
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives analysis (Section § 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.
• The “No Project” alternative shall be evaluated along with its impact. The “No Project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project is not approved.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 74
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.

Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives The alternatives in an EIR must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

Alternatives Analysis
The goal for evaluating any alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Project, while attaining most of the Project objectives. The City of Hemet has included the following 3 alternatives for consideration:
• No Project/No Development Alternative
• Reduced Project Alternative
• No Project/Build Out of the Existing Land Use Alternative Alternatives Not Selected for Analysis
Alternate Site Alternative. An alternate site for the Project was eliminated from further consideration. Based on a review of available sites for sale and the City of Hemet General Plan land use map, there are no other available, undeveloped properties of similar size (7,488 developable acres) that are zoned for industrial uses. There are no suitable sites within the control of the Project applicant. However, in the event that other land of suitable size could be purchased, the Project could have the same potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 75
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, paleontological resources, traffic and tribal cultural resources. Moreover, other possible sites may not be located in proximity to SR 74 and SR 79, the only established highway level transportation routes, and with access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities thereby possibly resulting in greater potential impacts.

Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed Project is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the impacts and need for mitigation resulting from the proposed Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation. Given these reasons, it would be infeasible to develop and operate the Project on an alternate site with fewer environmental impacts while meeting Project objectives. Therefore, the Alternative Site Alternative was rejected from further consideration.

Alternatives Evaluated
Alternative 1 – No Project/No Build Alternative
The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in continuation of the existing uses within the Project site, and the proposed development would not occur. As a result, this alternative would avoid the need for mitigation measures that are identified in Chapter 5.0 of this Draft EIR, which include measures related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, paleontological resources, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. This alternative would also avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and vehicle miles traveled. This alternative would result in lessened impacts to all of the 16 environmental topics analyzed in the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR Table 8-3).

However, the environmental benefits of the proposed Project would also not be realized, including providing jobs onsite that would result in a better jobs-housing balance in Hemet, which is currently considered housing rich. In addition, the No Project/ No Build Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives as shown on Table 8-4 of the Draft EIR. The No Project/ No Build Alternative would not make efficient use of underutilized property pursuant to existing zoning to provide for employment-generating uses for the local workforce, attract new businesses, promote economic growth, or utilize existing truck routes and infrastructure to accommodate the growing needs for goods movement within the region. None of these Project objectives would be met.

Finding: The City of Hemet finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative would not redevelop the site to provide development consistent with other regional redevelopment in the Mixed Use #4 Focus Area, would not develop industrial uses near existing truck routes pursuant to existing zoning to provide employment for the local workforce and promote economic growth and would not implement SCAG RTP/SCS policies related to providing additional employment centers near existing housing. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives (Draft EIR at p. 8-3) and is rejected on that basis.

Alternative 2 – Reduced Project Alternative
Under this alternative, the 66.38-acre western developable portion of the Project site would be developed with one 225,000 SF speculative warehouse building. Development under the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce Project square footage by approximately 81 percent. In addition, only 66.38-acres of the site would be developed as opposed to the 74.88-acres proposed by the Project. Many of the mitigation measures would still be applicable to this alternative; however, this alternative would result in lessened impacts to 14 of the 18 environmental topics analyzed in the Draft EIR

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 76
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
The Reduced Project Alternative would partially meet the majority of Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. This alternative would develop a property with industrial uses with nearby access to the freeway, by adding employment-generating uses and would attract new businesses and employment. Furthermore, the Reduced Alternative would reduce the need for the local workforce to commute outside of the Project vicinity. This alternative would develop a speculative warehouse building within close proximity to SR-74. However, this alternative would not meet the main Project objectives to the extent that the proposed Project would as it would bring less jobs to the area and provide less utilization for the site located along truck routes.

Finding: The City of Hemet finds that the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less industrial space and a reduced improvement to the jobs-housing balance and VMT would occur. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, and would continue to require mitigation. The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected on that basis.

Alternative 3 – No Project/Build Out of the Existing Land Use Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with a two-story 242,000 SF commercial building with 142,000 SF of commercial/retail space on the bottom floor and 100,000 SF of commercial office space as well as 171 dwelling units within eight separate three-story structures.

Development under the No Project/Build out of Existing Land Use Alternative would reduce Project square footage, however the Project would bring more occupants and vehicle trips to the Project site. While some impacts would be reduced, many of the impacts under this alternative would increase. All mitigation measures would still be applicable to this alternative; however, this alternative would result in lessened impacts to 4 of the 18 environmental topics analyzed in this Draft EIR.

The No Project/Build out of Existing Land Use Alternative would not meet many of the Project objectives. This alternative would develop a two-story 242,000 SF commercial building with 142,000 SF of commercial/retail space on the bottom floor and 100,000 SF of commercial office space as well as 171 dwelling units within eight separate three-story structures. The alternative would add employment-generating uses and would attract new businesses and employment.

Furthermore, the No Project/Build out of Existing Land Use Alternative would reduce the need for the local workforce to commute outside of the Project vicinity. However, this alternative would not meet the main Project objectives related to the development of industrial uses near existing truck routes in order to better serve the movement of goods.

Finding: The City of Hemet finds that the No Project/Build Out of the Existing Land Use Alternative would not assist the City in developing industrial uses near existing truck routes. In addition, the No Project/Build Out of Existing Land Use Alternative would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project or eliminate the need for mitigation. In fact, it would create additional impacts related to noise and air quality. Thus, the No Project/Build Out of the Existing Land Use and Zoning Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project as it would not take advantage of the sites positioning located near truck routes. The No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative is rejected on that basis.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section § 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 77
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
evaluated in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project/No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.

The EIR for the Project identified No Project/No Development Alternative has been identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, because the Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives would be Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, which would involve developing the Project site with one 225,000 SF speculative warehouse building.

This alternative would result in lessened impacts to 16 of the 18 environmental topics analyzed in the EIR. However, this alternative would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures regarding biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources, similar to the Project. Moreover, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 78
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 79
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
The City of Hemet is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the EIR for Newland Simpson Road Project (Project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section § 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.

This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

In addition, Public Resources Code Section § 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section § 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.

The City of Hemet, as the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed the EIR for Newland Simpson Road Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 80
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Overriding Considerations
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section § 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section § 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project are as follows:

1. The Economic Benefit Analysis estimates that the Project would create 1,253 total long-term labor and office jobs which would generate $72.55 million in labor income on an annual basis.

In addition, the Project would generate 902 total jobs during construction, generating $54.26 million in labor income during the construction period.

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

3. Based on the analysis of revenues and expenditure, the Project would generate a surplus to the City’s general fund, which can be reinvested into public services, infrastructure, and community programs.

4. The Project would also contribute $1.2 million in one-time site development impact fees and $2.2 million in building development impact fees to the City and various other agencies including fees for fire services; fees for storm drain facilities; transportation fees, inclusive of specific fees to be used toward the Domenigoni Parkway median project and the City’s Traffic Signal Synchronization project; and fees for the Hemet Unified School District.

5. The Developer is expected to spend $12,104,512 on offsite improvements, street enhancements and utilities.

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

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

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

9. The Project transforms an underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with the General Plan objectives for the Mixed Area #4 Focus Area, including General Plan Policy LU-9.6. The City’s General Plan identifies the need for a balanced employment base with a diversity of businesses, including industrial businesses. The Project would provide an industrial employment hub in proximity to highways and available truck routes. By allowing industrial development in this location, more employment opportunities would be available to the community.

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

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 81
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

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

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 82
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION X

RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City of Hemet (City) finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.

The City of Hemet declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation.

The City of Hemet certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions:

Findings:

The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and would require mitigation as set forth in Section V of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance:
• Agriculture and Forestry (Project-related and cumulative), • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Project-related and cumulative), • Noise (Project-level and Cumulative), and
• Transportation (Project-level).

Conclusions:

1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to agriculture and forestry, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

2. Other alternatives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project.

3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed Project.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 83
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 84
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION XI

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section § 21081.6, the City of Hemet hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 85
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 86
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION XI

RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Hemet Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Hemet. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section § 21081.6.

The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum:

1. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;

2. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment periods on the Draft EIR;

3. The Final EIR for Newland Simpson Road Project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices;

4. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Project;

5. All findings, resolutions and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the Newland Simpson Road Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;

6. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Newland Simpson Road Project;

7. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Newland Simpson Road Project up though Project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;

8. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and

9. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).

The following location is where review of the record of proceedings may be performed:

City of Hemet, Community Development Department
244 E Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 87
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
This page was intentionally left blank.

7.A.

Memorandum
To: City of Hemet
From: Newland Capital Group
Date: June 30, 2025
Re: Simpson Road Project – Executive Summary of Economic Benefit Analysis Simpson Road Project (the “Project”) is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Hemet (“City”) to the southwest and southeast of the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road. of Baker Simpson Road and north of Domenigoni Parkway in the City of Hemet (“City”). The Project site encompasses one (1) parcel totaling approximately 44.23 acres. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with naturally occurring vegetation. The Project will consist of constructing a new light industrial building with 875,760 SF of warehouse space and 9,000 SF of office space and related onsite and offsite improvements.

At the request of Newland Capital Group (“Developer”), DPFG, LLC (“DPFG”) has prepared an Economic Benefit Analysis for the Project to estimate the number of temporary and permanent jobs that would be created by the Project during the construction period and on an on-going basis. The results of the Economic Benefit Analysis are summarized as follows:

Over an average annual basis, over the 18-month construction period, it is estimated that the Project will generate:
902 Total Jobs.
▪ 641 Direct Jobs.
▪ 101 Indirect Jobs.
▪ 160 Induced Jobs.
$54.26 Million in Labor Income.
▪ $40.48 Million in Direct Labor Income.
▪ $6.11 Million in Indirect Labor Income.
▪ $7.67 Million in Induced Labor Income.

7.A.

Upon completion, on an Annual ongoing basis, it is estimated that the Project will generate:
1,253 Total Jobs.
▪ 806 Direct Jobs.
▪ 244 Indirect Jobs.
▪ 203 Induced Jobs
$72.55 Million in Labor Income.
▪ $50.34 Million in Direct Labor Income.
▪ $12.47 Million in Indirect Labor Income.
▪ $9.74 Million in Induced Labor Income.

We analyzed the Project using IMPLAN. IMPLAN is the most widely employed and accepted regional economic analysis software for predicting economic impacts. The IMPLAN model is used to predict the economic consequences of a development project within a local economy and measures the direct, indirect, and induced effects in terms of employment, and earnings within the local region.

A key concept to understand about the IMPLAN economic impact analysis is that one form of economic activity almost always stimulates other economic activities. The total economic impact of a specific project or event on a study area is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The direct economic activity stemming from the Project stimulates subsequent indirect and induced impacts to the local economy.

The three components of economic impact are further described below:

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

Indirect Impact: Represents the impact on local industries as a result of inter-industry purchases as the economy responds to new demand of the directly affected industries.

This impact represents the additional rounds of economic activity that occur as a consequence from the direct impacts, specifically through the production of goods and services required to support businesses directly impacted. For example, as it relates to jobs, if a direct impact of a Project is the creation of construction jobs on-site as a result of building new homes, then an indirect impact would be the creation of jobs in the lumber industry as result of the contractor’s purchase of lumber to construct those homes.

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

7.A.

The specific economic impacts evaluated in this analysis are employment and labor income.

Employment: Represents the number of jobs produced in the economy.

Labor Income: Represents the total value of all forms of employment income paid throughout the local economy.

These economic impacts are driven by economic activity generated directly at the Project site as well as the related flow of economic activity in the specified region. In this case, the defined geographic region is the County of Riverside and the economic activities generating impacts are the construction of the Project, the annual ongoing activities of the new businesses located in the Project, and new local spending by the Project’s tenants. Accordingly, this analysis evaluates the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the Project at two separate times: (i) a onetime evaluation of direct, indirect, and induced effects during the construction of the Project (“Construction Period Impacts”) and (ii) the ongoing annual direct, indirect, and induced effects at buildout (“Ongoing Annual Impacts”).

Construction Period Impacts:

The “Construction Period” commences upon initial site development and ends upon completion of construction. Per the Developer, the Construction Period is expected to be approximately eighteen (18) months. Direct inputs were comprised of construction cost summarized as follows:

Direct Construction Cost:

Industrial Building $ 122,096,880
Off-site Improvements 12,104,512
Total Direct Construction Cost: $ 134,201,392
Construction of the Project will contribute to the creation of new direct, indirect, and induced jobs in the City and County-wide. Direct jobs created during the Construction Period consist of the employees constructing the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to (i) the other industries that need to produce additional goods and services to meet the demand from contractors/businesses directly involved in the construction of the Project and (ii) discretionary spending of the construction employees. The Project is anticipated to create 902 annual jobs during the Construction Period.

Labor income during the construction period includes employment compensation and benefits paid to workers. The direct effect on labor income during the Construction Period is comprised of labor income paid to construction employees on site. The indirect effect on labor income includes the income of those employees of businesses providing goods and services to the contractors/businesses working directly on the site. The induced effect on labor income is comprised of the income of employees working at businesses that experience growth from the discretionary spending of the direct and indirect employees. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate an average of $54,258,000 annually in labor income over the Construction Period.

7.A.

Ongoing Annual Impacts:

Ongoing annual direct effects represent the anticipated economic effects of the Project once the site is stabilized. Ongoing annual direct effects on employment relate to the employees working at the Project, whereas the indirect and induced jobs created during this phase relate to the other industries that produce goods and services that support the new businesses of the Project and local spending by the new employees of the Project. The project is anticipated to create approximately 755 full-time equivalent employees. Full-time equivalent employees for the Project were based on occupancy and the square feet per employee estimates according to the anticipated tenant type. Because IMPLAN’s definition of employment includes “all jobs” (i.e., full-time, part-time, and seasonal), IMPLAN industry sector conversion factor of 0.9379 for light Industrial use and 0.9245 for general office use in the County of Riverside. This resulted in approximately 806 total direct employees (i.e., total “headcount” jobs). Based on this direct employee number, the Project is anticipated to create 1,253 annual jobs (direct, indirect, and induced).

The direct effect on labor income during the Permanent Ongoing Period includes the labor income paid to on-site employees of the Project. The indirect and induced effects on labor income consist of the income of those employees associated with businesses that service the Project, as well as the income of the new employees generated by the increased demand for goods and services from the Project. Overall, the Project is estimated to generate $72,551,000 annually in labor income.

Disclaimer
Our analysis uses conservative metrics drawn from IMPLAN’s RiversideCounty market data and our industry knowledge and experience. It should be noted, however, that market conditions may change between now and when the Project is anticipated to open. Accordingly, as the information, estimates, and assumptions used in the analysis are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events (e.g., market conditions, government regulations, etc.), the estimates presented herein are subject to change.

Exhibits
Refer to the Economic Benefit Analysis (Exhibit A – Table 1 through 5) found in subsequent pages.

7.A.

Exhibit A
Newland Capital Group
Simpson Road Project
City of Hemet
Table 1 - Land Use Assumptions
I. Assessed Value SF (a)
Assessed Value
per SF (a)
Total
Assessed Value
Improvements - Light Industrial 875,760 $ 138 $ 120,854,880 Improvements - Office space 9,000 138 1,242,000
Offsite Improvements 12,104,512
Total Non-Residential Assessed Value 884,760 $ 134,201,392 II. Project Population Total SF
SF per
Employee (b)
Total FTE
Employees
IMPLAN Employee
Conversion rate (c)
Total Full-time, Parttime and seasonal
Employees
Improvements - Light Industrial 875,760 1,235 709 0.9379 756 Improvements - Office space 9,000 195 46 0.9245 50
Total Non- Residential Employees 755 806
Footnotes:
(a) Per Newland Capital Group as of 6/24/2025.
(b)
(c)
June 30, 2025
IMPLAN conversion rates are used to convert the FTE number to full-time, part-time and seasonal number (Total Employment). The Total Employment is calculated by dividing the FTE number by the IMPLAN conversion rate.

Per information provided by the potential tenant.

7.A.

Exhibit A
Newland Capital Group
Simpson Road Project
City of Hemet
Table 2 - Economic Benefit Analysis Summary
June 30, 2025
Average Annual Construction Period Impacts Permanent Ongoing Annual Impacts 18 Months Construction Period
Jobs Labor Income Jobs Labor Income
Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect Direct Effect 641 $40.48 Million 806 $50.34 Million
Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 101 $6.11 Million 244 $12.47 Million
Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect Induced Effect 160 $7.67 Million 203 $9.74 Million
Total Average Annual
Number of Jobs
Total Average Annual
Labor Income
Total Average Annual
Number of Jobs
Total Average Annual
Labor Income
902 $54.26 Million 1,253 $72.55 Million
Cumulative Cumulative
Construction Period Impacts Ongoing Annual Impacts
18 Months Cumulative
Labor Income
5 Years Cumulative
Labor Income
10 Years Cumulative
Labor Income
$81.39 Million $362.76 Million $.73 Billion

7.A.

Exhibit A
Newland Capital Group
Simpson Road Project
City of Hemet
Table 3 - Construction Period Impacts
June 30, 2025
Employment Impact Jobs Description
Direct Effect 641
Represents direct onsite construction-related
jobs.

Indirect Effect 101
Represents jobs created as a result of new
business to business spending in the local
economy.

Induced Effect 160
Represents jobs created as a result of spending
by new direct and indirect employees in the local
economy.

Total 902
Labor Income Impact Labor Income Description
Direct Effect $40.48 Million Represents direct onsite construction labor income.

Indirect Effect $6.11 Million
Represents labor income generated as a result
of new business to business spending in the
local economy.

Induced Effect $7.67 Million
Represents labor income generated as a result
of spending by new direct and indirect
employees in the local economy.

Total $54.26 Million
Footnotes:

Average Annual Jobs Created During Construction Period (a) Average Annual Labor Income Generated During Construction Period (a) (a) Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. Riverside County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

7.A.

Exhibit A
Newland Capital Group
Simpson Road Project
City of Hemet
Table 4 - Ongoing Annual Impacts
June 30, 2025
Employment Impact Total Jobs Description
Direct Effect (b) 806
Represents direct onsite jobs created by the
operations of the new facilities.

Indirect Effect 244
Represents jobs created as a result of new
business to business spending in the local
economy.

Induced Effect
203
Represents jobs created as a result of spending
by new direct and indirect employees in the local
economy.

Total 1,253
Labor Income Impact
Total Labor
Income
Description
Direct Effect $50.34 Million Represents labor income generated by the operations of the new facilities
Indirect Effect $12.47 Million
Represents labor income generated from new
business to business spending in the local
economy.

Induced Effect $9.74 Million
Represents labor income generated by spending
of new direct and indirect employees in the local
economy.

Total $72.55 Million
Footnotes:

Total Ongoing Annual Number of Jobs Created (a)
Total Ongoing Annual Labor Income Generated (a)
(a) Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. Riverside County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal). (b) 755 full-time equivalent direct jobs were converted to 806 full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs using IMPLAN industry sector conversion factors.

7.A.

Exhibit A
Newland Capital Group
Simpson Road Project
City of Hemet
Table 5 - Top 10 Industries Affected
Rank Industry Jobs
1 Warehousing and Storage 828
2 Other Real Estate 57
3 Office Administrative Services 54
4 Employment Services 32
5 Couriers and Messenger 15
6 Limited-service Restaurants 15
7 Full-service Restaurants 13
8 Individual and Family Services 10
9 Services to Buildings 8
10 All Other Food and Drinking Places 8
(a)
(b) Jobs by Top Ten industries affected by the new commercial activity and local spending as a result of the new Project.

June 30, 2025
Total Ongoing Annual Top 10 Industries Affected (a) (b) Footnotes:

Calculated using IMPLAN, a nationally recognized economic modeling system. Riverside County is the study area. Jobs are reported as all jobs (full-time, part-time, and seasonal).

7.A.

1 Date: June 27, 2025
Prepared by: Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III To: Monique Alaniz-Flejter, [email protected]
Site: Newland Simpson Road Project
Subject: Reduced Project Site Plan – Consistency with Newland Simpson Road Project EIR (SCH No. 2023120462)
This memorandum addresses the site plan changes for the Newland Simpson Road Project and the new site plan’s consistency with the Newland Simpson Road Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023120462), which was circulated for public comment between May 17, 2024 and July 1, 2024. As discussed within this memorandum, the reduction in proposed square footage and acreage in the new site plan would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and the Applicant refuses to adopt it; and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Newland Simpson Road Project EIR Summary
The Newland Simpson Road Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed the construction and operation of two new warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1,192,418 square feet (SF) on a 74.88 gross (71.11 net) acre site. As analyzed in the EIR, Building 1 would be developed with an 883,080 SF speculative high-cube warehouse building including 838,926 SF of warehouse space, 44,154 SF of office space, and 144 dock-high doors with an FAR of 0.47. Building 2 would be developed with a 309,338 SF speculative high-cube warehouse building including 293,871 SF of warehouse space, 15,467 SF of office space, and 50 dock-high doors with an FAR of 0.39. The Project would also include an 8.90-acre ancillary trailer parking lot with 160 truck trailer parking stalls in the easternmost lot across Warren Road.

The previously proposed site plan is referred to herein as the “Previous Project”.

The EIR found that the following topic areas would have “no impact” or would be “less than significant”:
• Aesthetics
• Conflict with a Williamson Act or
Agricultural Zoning
• Conflict with Forestry Resources
• Regional Operational Air Quality
Emissions
• Localized Construction & Operational
Air Quality Emissions and Health Risk
• Odors

7.A.

2 • Riparian Habitat
• Conflict with biological ordinances
• Historical Resources
• Energy
• Geology & Soils
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology & Water Quality
• On-site construction and operational
noise
• Vibration
• Population & Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Circulation (plans, design, emergency
access)
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Wildfire
The EIR found that the following topic areas would be “less than significant with mitigation incorporated”:
• Conflict with Air Quality Management
Plan
• Regional Construction Air Quality
Emissions
• Sensitive species
• Nesting birds
• Conflict with the MSHCP
• Archaeological Resources
• Human Remains
• Paleontological Resources
• Tribal Cultural Resources
The EIR found that the following topic areas would be “significant and unavoidable”:
• Loss of Farmland
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Traffic Noise
• Vehicle Miles Traveled
Revised Project Site Plan
The Revised Project Site Plan, referred to herein as the "Revised Project”, would include development of one building on approximately 44.23 acres. The Revised Project would only include one building, Building 1, which would total approximately 884,760 SF, as shown in Figure 1, Revised Project Site Plan. The proposed building would include 9,000 SF of office space. The Revised Project would include approximately 938 auto parking stalls, 202 trailer parking stalls, and 146 dock doors. In addition, the Revised Project would include approximately 170,945 SF of landscape area.

The off-site improvements proposed under the Previous Project would remain the same under the Revised Project.

The Revised Project would include a Tentative Parcel Map to split APN 465-140-043 into two parcels (Parcel 1 and Parcel 2) and provide right-of-way dedications from both APN 465-140-043 and 465- 140-042 (Parcel 3). Parcel 1 is only proposed for development under the Revised Project; no development would occur on Parcel 2 or 3. The Revised Project would include a General Plan Amendment on the new Parcel 1 (westernmost parcel) from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P) to ensure consistency with the existing zoning on Parcel 1.

7.A.

3 Figure 1: Revised Project Site Plan

7.A.

4 Impact Reductions
Based on the square footage reduction proposed under the Revised Project, EPD Solutions prepared a trip generation to calculate the reduced trips resulting from the Revised Project in comparison to the Previous Project. As shown in Table 1, compared to the Previous Project, the Revised Project would result in 655 net fewer daily trips, 38 net fewer AM peak hour trips and 51 net fewer PM peak hour trips. In terms of PCE, the Revised Project would result in 835 net fewer daily PCE trips, 49 net fewer AM peak hour PCE trips and 62 net fewer PM peak hour PCE trips.

Table 1: Change in Project Trip Generation
Since the Revised Project would result in fewer vehicle trips than the Previous Project, the analysis provided in the Simpson Road Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis would be a conservative estimate of traffic impacts. Further, the reduction in trips generated by the Revised Project would correlate to a reduction in impacts associated with air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic noise.

In order to demonstrate the decrease in air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, EPD Solutions utilized CalEEmod to estimate the construction and operational emissions occurring from the Revised Project in comparison to those disclosed within the EIR. As shown in the attached memo, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Tables for the Comparative Analysis of the Revised Newland Simpson Road Project, regional air pollutant emissions from construction would be reduced by approximately 26 to 32 percent, dependent on the specific pollutant. Regional air pollutant emissions from operations would be reduced by approximately 24 to 27 percent, dependent on the specific pollutant. Localized construction emissions would be decreased by approximately 33 percent and localized operational emissions would be decreased by approximately 27 to 38 percent in comparison to the Previous Project. In addition, while GHG emissions resulting from the Revised Project would remain above SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, they would be reduced by approximately 26 percent compared to the Previous Project.

Land Use Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Prior Project
Total Auto Trips 2,087 95 28 123 48 124 172
Total Truck Trips 452 17 6 23 7 18 25
Total Trips 2,539 112 34 146 55 142 197
Total PCE Trips 3,235 140 48 188 71 169 240
Reduced Project
Total Auto Trips 1,549 70 21 91 35 93 128
Total Truck Trips 335 13 4 17 6 13 18
Total Trips 1,884 83 25 108 41 106 146
Total PCE Trips 2,400 106 33 139 51 127 178
Change in Trips
Total Auto Trips -538 -25 -7 -32 -13 -31 -44
Total Truck Trips -117 -4 -2 -6 -1 -5 -7
Total Trips -655 -29 -9 -38 -14 -36 -51
Total PCE Trips -835 -34 -15 -49 -20 -42 -62
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

7.A.

5 The reduction in building square footage as part of the Revised Project would result in decreased impacts related to aesthetics, hazards & hazardous materials, land use & planning, on-site construction & operational noise, vibration, population & housing, public services, utilities & service systems, and wildfire. Specifically related to aesthetics, since only Building 1 would be developed as part of the Revised Project, setbacks from the proposed building and Warren Avenue would increase. Therefore, views of the Domenigoni Mountains would be more expansive than those that would occur with implementation of the Previous Project. Furthermore, the reduction in development footprint would result in reduced ground disturbing activities and a reduction in impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources.

Validity of EIR
Under CEQA, cities are free to adopt a variation of a project or one of the alternatives, even though that specific variation was not directly analyzed in the EIR. For decades, courts have acknowledged that “CEQA does not handcuff decisionmakers,” and does not mandate “a blanket approval of the entire project initially described in the EIR. (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 336; Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1041.) These courts have pointed out that if CEQA were implemented in a way to deny decisionmakers the flexibility needed to revise or alter projects based on the conclusions reached in the EIR, “the informational value of the document would be sacrificed.” (Ibid.) In other words, one of the major reasons CEQA requires an EIR is to inform decisionmakers of a potential project’s impacts and allow them the flexibility to use that information to alter or revise the project in a manner that limits environmental impacts but still achieves the desired goals.

Thus, not only may the City adopt an alternative identified in the EIR, the City may also adopt some variation of the Project or an alternative identified in the EIR. (Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Los Angeles (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1181-82.) Notably, the only key consideration before the City adopts a variation of the Project or an alternative is whether the variation departs from the proposed Project or alternatives to such an extent that it triggers the need for recirculation. (Western Placer Citizens for An Agricultural and Rural Environment v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 903-04, 06.) As the Revised Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the EIR would not be required. Overall, the analysis contained within the Newland Simpson Road Project EIR provides a conservative analysis of potential impacts resulting from the Revised Project and the EIR can be relied upon as the CEQA documentation for the Revised Project.

7.A.

Date: June 27, 2025
Prepared by: Simon Lin, EIT
Meghan Macias, T.E.

EPD Solutions, Inc.

To: City of Hemet
Site: Simpson Road Warehouse
Subject: Summary of Change in Trip Generation Under Revised Simpson Road Warehouse Project
This technical memorandum evaluates the change in trip generation resulting from changes to the proposed project for the Newland Simpson Road Warehouse Project in the City of Hemet.

Project Description
The Project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Simpson Road and Warren Road in the City of Hemet. The Project site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 465- 140-043 and 465-140-042. EPD previously analyzed the development of two high-cube warehouse buildings of 883,080 square feet (SF) and 309,338 SF, totaling 1,192,418 SF (“Previous Project”). The Simpson Road Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis dated May 30th, 2024, prepared by EPD for the Previous Project, was approved by the City of Hemet on June 21st, 2024.

Since then, the Project has been reduced to one high-cube warehouse building of 884,760 SF (“Revised Project”), instead of two warehouse buildings totaling 1,192,418 SF.

Project Trip Generation
The Previous Project was analyzed in the Simpson Road Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis, using trip rates from the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019). As shown in the previous Traffic Impact Analysis, the project was estimated to generate approximately 2,539 daily trips, 146 AM peak hour trips, and 197 PM peak hour trips. In terms of passenger car equivalent (PCE), the Previous Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,235 daily PCE trips, 188 AM peak hour PCE trips, and 240 PM peak hour PCE trips. The Previous Project site plan is shown in Figure 1. Table 1 presents the trip generation calculations for the Previous Project.

The Revised Project was evaluated using trip rates from the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (WSP, January 29, 2019). As shown in Table 2, the Revised Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,884 daily trips, 108 AM peak hour trips, and 146 PM peak hour trips. In terms of PCE, the Revised Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,400 daily PCE trips, 139 AM peak hour PCE trips, and 178 PM peak hour PCE trips. The Revised Project site plan is shown in Figure 2.

7.A.

Page | 2
As shown in Table 3, compared to the Previous Project, the Revised Project would result in 655 net fewer daily trips, 38 net fewer AM peak hour trips and 51 net fewer PM peak hour trips. In terms of PCE, the Revised Project would result in 835 net fewer daily PCE trips, 49 net fewer AM peak hour PCE trips and 62 net fewer PM peak hour PCE trips. Because the Revised Project would result in fewer vehicle trips than the Previous Project, the analysis provided in the Simpson Road Warehouse Traffic Impact Analysis would be a conservative estimate of traffic impacts. There would be no new impacts from the Revised Project, therefore no further analysis is required.

If you have any questions about this analysis, please contact us at (949) 794-1180 or [email protected].

7.A.

Page |
3 Figure 1: Previous Project Site Plan

7.A.

Page |
4 Figure 2: Revised Project Site Plan

7.A.

Page | 5
Table 1: Previous Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse1 TSF 2.129 0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 Project Trip Generation Building 1
Industrial Bulding 1 1 883.080 TSF 1,880 83 25 108 41 105 146 Vehicle Mix 1 % Daily % AM % PM
Passenger Vehicles 82.20% 84.40% 87.30% 1,546 71 20 91 36 92 128 2- Axle Trucks 3.80% 1.10% 1.10% 71 1 0 1 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 2.50% 2.20% 2.20% 47 2 1 3 1 2 3
4-Axle Trucks 1.30% 3.30% 3.30% 24 3 1 4 1 4 5
5+-Axle Trucks 10.20% 9.00% 6.10% 192 6 3 9 3 6 9
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,880 83 25 108 41 105 146
PCE Trip Generation 2 PCE Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 1,546 71 20 91 36 92 128
2-Axle truck 1.5 107 1 1 2 1 1 2
3-Axle truck 2.0 94 5 1 6 2 4 6
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 649 26 12 38 13 29 42
Industrial Bulding 1 Total PCE Trip Generation 2,396 103 34 137 52 126 178 Project Trip Generation Building 2
Industrial Bulding 2 1 309.338 TSF 659 29 9 38 14 37 51 Vehicle Mix 1 % Daily % AM % PM
Passenger Vehicles 82.20% 84.40% 87.30% 541 24 8 32 12 32 44 2- Axle Trucks 3.80% 1.10% 1.10% 25 0 0 0 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 2.50% 2.20% 2.20% 16 1 0 1 0 1 1
4-Axle Trucks 1.30% 3.30% 3.30% 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
5+-Axle Trucks 10.20% 9.00% 6.10% 67 3 1 4 1 2 3
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 659 29 9 38 14 37 51
PCE Trip Generation 2 PCE Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 541 24 8 32 12 32 44
2-Axle truck 1.5 38 0 1 1 0 1 1
3-Axle truck 2.0 33 1 1 2 1 1 2
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 227 12 4 16 6 9 15
Industrial Bulding 2 Total PCE Trip Generation 839 37 14 51 19 43 62 Project Total Passenger Vehicle Trip Generation 2,087 95 28 123 48 124 172 Project Total Truck Trip Generation 452 17 6 23 7 18 25 Project Total Trip Generation 2,539 112 34 146 55 142 197 Project Total PCE Trip Generation 3,235 140 48 188 71 169 240 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
1 Trip rates and truck percentages from the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019. 2 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors from the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Guidelines, December 2020.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

7.A.

Page | 6
Table 2: Revised Project Trip Generation
Table 3: Change in Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse1 TSF 2.129 0.094 0.028 0.122 0.046 0.119 0.165 Project Trip Generation Building 1
Industrial Bulding 1 1 884.760 TSF 1,884 83 25 108 41 105 146 Vehicle Mix 1 % Daily % AM % PM
Passenger Vehicles 82.20% 84.40% 87.30% 1,549 70 21 91 35 92 128 2- Axle Trucks 3.80% 1.10% 1.10% 72 1 0 1 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 2.50% 2.20% 2.20% 47 2 0 2 1 2 3
4-Axle Trucks 1.30% 3.30% 3.30% 24 3 1 4 1 4 5
5+-Axle Trucks 10.20% 9.00% 6.10% 192 7 3 10 3 6 9
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1,884 83 25 108 41 105 146
PCE Trip Generation 2 PCE Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 1,549 70 21 91 35 93 128
2-Axle truck 1.5 107 2 0 2 1 1 2
3-Axle truck 2.0 94 4 0 4 2 4 6
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 650 30 12 42 13 29 42
Industrial Bulding 1 Total PCE Trip Generation 2,400 106 33 139 51 127 178 Project Total Passenger Vehicle Trip Generation 1,549 70 21 91 35 93 128 Project Total Truck Trip Generation 335 13 4 17 6 13 18 Project Total Trip Generation 1,884 83 25 108 41 106 146 Project Total PCE Trip Generation 2,400 106 33 139 51 127 178 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
1 Trip rates from TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study Update, Fehr & Peers, November 13, 2023. In/Out splits from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 155 - High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse. 2 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors from the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Guidelines, December 2020.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Previous Project
Total Auto Trips 2,087 95 28 123 48 124 172
Total Truck Trips 452 17 6 23 7 18 25
Total Trips 2,539 112 34 146 55 142 197
Total PCE Trips 3,235 140 48 188 71 169 240
Revised Project
Total Auto Trips 1,549 70 21 91 35 93 128
Total Truck Trips 335 13 4 17 6 13 18
Total Trips 1,884 83 25 108 41 106 146
Total PCE Trips 2,400 106 33 139 51 127 178
Change in Trips
Total Auto Trips -538 -25 -7 -32 -13 -31 -44
Total Truck Trips -117 -4 -2 -6 -1 -5 -7
Total Trips -655 -29 -9 -38 -14 -36 -51
Total PCE Trips -835 -34 -15 -49 -20 -42 -62
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
1 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Project Overview
This technical memorandum presents the reduction of the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts from the revised Newland Simpson Road Project (“Revised Project”) compared to the previously proposed Newland Simpson Road Project (referred to in this memo as the “Previous Project”), located in the City of Hemet at the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road. The revised site plan is shown in Figure 1, Revised Project Site Plan, included at the end of this memo.

The Previous Project site encompassed 74.88 gross acres, inclusive of areas for off-site improvements. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Previous Project analyzed impacts related to the development of two speculative industrial buildings and an ancillary truck parking lot to support warehouse, distribution, and office uses. Building 1 was analyzed as 883,080 square feet (SF) and Building 2 as 309,338 SF. In total, the two buildings were proposed to be 1,192,418 SF. The EIR determined that the Previous Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality with mitigation implemented, and significant unavoidable impacts to GHG. The air quality and GHG reports prepared for the Previous Project can be found as Appendix C and J to the EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2023120462).

The Revised Project proposes a reduction in site plan acreage and building square footage. The Revised Project site would encompass approximately 44.23 acres with 4.52 acres of offsite improvements. Only one warehouse building is proposed, totaling 884,760 SF, as part of the Revised Project. The offsite improvements would be the same as the Previous Project. The Revised Project’s criteria pollutants and GHG emissions are analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod. Version 2022.1) land use emission model. For consistency with the Previous Project analysis, the same construction schedule, passenger car fleet mix, truck fleet mix, and operational equipment were assumed for the Revised Project. Construction equipment and construction trips were reduced proportionally, based on the ratios of the Revised Project to Previous Project acreage and building square footage. The trip generation rate was obtained from the Revised Project Trip Generation Memo1. Detailed justification for changes to the CalEEMod default values can be found in Section 8, User Changes to Default Data, of the CalEEMod Output Sheets, included as Attachment A to this memo. Air quality and GHG emissions reduction compared to the Previous Project have been summarized in the tables below.

In conclusion, the Revised Project would emit less criteria pollutants and GHG emissions compared to those resulting from the Previous Project as previously analyzed in the EIR. Moreover, the Revised Project would continue to not exceed any construction or operational air quality significance thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) with mitigation implemented. However, the Revised Project’s impact related to GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 1 EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025). Summary of Change in Trip Generation Under Revised Simpson Road Warehouse Project.

To: City of Hemet
From: Tiffany Dang, Tina Yuan, Alex Garber, EPD Solutions, Inc.

Date: 6/26/2025
Re: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Tables for the comparative analysis of the revised Newland Simpson Road Project, EPD Project Number 22-030

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
2 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Air Quality
Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions
Without the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the Previous Project, both the Previous Project and the Revised Project would exceed SCAQMD’s regional construction thresholds for ROG and NOx. However, the Revised Project would result in a decrease in emissions as compared to the Previous Project. Table 1, Revised Project - Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions, shows emissions resulting from the construction of the Revised Project as compared to the Previous Project.

Table 1. Revised Project - Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions Construction Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Revised Project Year 1 10.27 108.75 89.56 0.28 18.69 9.33 Revised Project Year 2 133.71 29.82 48.53 0.06 6.27 1.96 Revised Project Maximum (Year 1 – 2) 133.71 108.75 89.56 0.28 18.69 9.33 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No
Previous Project Maximum 181.27 153.99 132.45 0.36 25.76 13.23 Difference -47.56 -45.24 -42.89 -0.08 -7.07 -3.90
Percent Decrease -26% -29% -32% -23% -27% -30%
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
3 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions
Due to an exceedance in ROG and NOx emissions, the Revised Project would continue to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2. The same mitigation measures applied in the Previous Project were used in this analysis, which include:
• AQ MM-1: Use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints for nonresidential interior and exterior surfaces and low VOC paint for parking lot surfaces. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter of VOC.
• AQ MM-2: Use of advanced engine tiers (Tier 4 Interim) for all diesel-powered construction equipment 50-horsepower or greater.

Table 2, Revised Project - Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions, shows construction emissions with mitigation applied. The Revised Project would result in a percent decrease in emissions as compared to the Previous Project and would result in a less than significant regional construction impact to air quality, with mitigation implemented.

Table 2. Revised Project - Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Revised Project Year 1 2.61 70.41 102.07 0.28 14.96 5.92 Revised Project Year 2 33.87 20.93 52.71 0.06 5.80 1.53 Revised Project Maximum (Year 1 – 2) 33.87 70.41 102.07 0.28 14.96 5.92 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Previous Project Maximum 46.72 96.47 151.22 0.36 20.16 8.12 Difference -12.85 -26.06 -49.15 -0.08 -5.20 -2.20
Percent Decrease -28% -27% -33% -23% -26% -27%
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
4 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Regional Operational Emissions
The Revised Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional operational thresholds, consistent with the findings of the Previous Project. In addition, the Revised Project would result in a decrease in operational emissions compared to the Previous Project. Therefore, the Revised Project would continue to result in less than significant regional operational impacts to air quality. Table 3, Revised Project - Regional Operational Emissions, shows the emissions resulting from operation of the Revised Project as compared to the Previous Project.

Table 3. Revised Project - Regional Operational Emissions Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Revised Project 35.18 35.42 160.32 0.49 30.98 8.40
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Previous Project 47.76 48.27 211.34 0.65 41.78 11.36
Difference -12.58 -12.85 -51.02 -0.16 -10.80 -2.96
Percent Decrease -26% -27% -24% -25% -26% -26%
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A)

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
5 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Localized Construction Emissions
Table 4, Revised Project - Localized Construction Emissions, shows the thresholds and estimated maximum daily localized construction emissions for the Revised Project as compared to the Previous Project. Since equipment quantity inputs for off-site construction improvements were kept consistent between the Revised Project and the Previous Project, only changes in emissions for the onsite construction phases are shown below. As shown in Table 4, the Revised Project would not exceed applicable thresholds and therefore would result in a less than significant localized construction air quality impact, consistent with the Previous Project. Additionally, the Revised Project’s would result in a decrease in emissions for the site preparation and grading phases.

Table 4: Revised Project – Site Prep Localized Construction Emissions Scenario
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 34.91 29.96 7.27 4.28
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 504 4,731 127 52
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Previous Project Maximum Emissions 46.54 39.94 9.70 5.70 Difference -11.63 -9.98 -2.43 -1.42
Percent Decrease -25% -25% -25% -25%
Grading 89.45 81.22 13.22 7.58
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 556 5,282 127 52
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Previous Project Maximum Emissions 134.18 121.83 19.82 11.37 Difference -44.73 -40.61 -6.60 -3.79
Percent Decrease -33% -33% -33% -33%

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
6 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Localized Operational Emissions
Table 5, Revised Project - Localized Operational Emissions, shows the thresholds and estimated maximum daily localized operational emissions for the Revised Project as compared to the Proposed Project. Consistent with the Previous Project, localized operational emissions from the Revised Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s localized operational thresholds. Additionally the Revised Project would result in a percent decrease in emissions. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in less than significant localized operational air quality impacts.

Table 5: Revised Project - Localized Operational Emissions Emission Sources Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Revised Project Total 8.49 65.78 4.95 1.36
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 556 5,282 31 13
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Previous Project 12.37 106.04 6.74 1.91
Difference -3.88 -40.26 -1.79 -0.55
Percent Decrease -31% -38% -27% -29%
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Thresholds used by the Previous Project analysis were applied Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A)

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
7 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction GHG
The Revised Project’s construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 6, Revised Project - Project Construction GHG Emissions. The construction emissions are amortized over 30 years. Compared to the Previous Project, the Revised Project would result in a decrease in amortized construction emissions by 25 percent.

Table 6: Revised Project - Project Construction GHG Emissions Activity GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Revised Project - 2025 (Year 1) 1,563.60
Revised Project - 2026 (Year 2) 541.01
Total Revised Project GHG Emissions 2,104.61
Revised Project Total Emissions
(Amortized Over 30 Years) 70.15
Previous Project Amortized Emissions 93.301
Difference -23.15
Percent Decrease -25%
Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A) 1Previous Project amortized emissions were calculated by taking the sum of annual construction emissions of building construction and off-site construction, as provided in Appendix 3.1 of the Previous Project’s GHG Report.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
8 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Construction and Operational GHG
The overall construction and operational emissions for the Revised Project, as compared to the Previous Project, are shown in Table 7, Total Revised Project GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 7, the Revised Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would total 7,707.41 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. However, compared to the Previous Project, the Revised Project would result in a reduction in emissions of 2,693.12 MTCO2e per year. This equates to a 26 percent decrease in annual GHG emissions as compared to the Previous Project.

Consistent with the Previous Project, GHG impacts resulting from the Revised Project would remain significant and unavoidable. The Revised Project would also be required to apply the same mitigation measures as the Previous Project (MM GHG-1 through GHG-10), which are listed in the Previous Project’s EIR. However, GHG reductions from these measures are not quantifiable in CalEEMod. Therefore, this memo conservatively presents unmitigated GHG emissions, consistent with the GHG Report prepared for the Previous Project.

Table 7: Total Revised Project GHG Emissions
Activity GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per year)1
Revised Project Operational Emissions 7,637.25
Revised Project Amortized Construction Emissions 70.15
Revised Project Total Emissions 7,707.41
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? Yes
Previous Project Total Emissions1 10,400.531
Difference -2,693.12
Percent Decrease -26%
Notes: 1. Numbers may vary due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A) 1Previous Project amortized emissions were calculated by taking the sum of annual construction emissions of building construction and off-site construction, as provided in Appendix 3.1 of the Previous Project’s GHG Report.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
9 Air Quality and GHG Tables
Figure 1: Revised Project Site Plan
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
GATE
RAMP

DOMENIGONI PARKWAY

SIMPSON ROAD

WARREN ROAD

SECURED TRUCK COURT
RAMP

RAMP RAMP
BLDG 1
884,760 S.F.

GATE
OFFICE
3,000 S.F.

OFFICE
6,000 S.F.

CLEAR HEIGHT: 50'

SECURED TRUCK COURT
40'

DRIVEWAY
20'

DRIVEWAY
40'

DRIVEWAY
170'-3". 1452' 396'-9"
201' 185'
-
4". 590'
192'
-
6".
60' 60'
TYP.
58'
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
60'
TYP.
60'
80'-7"

NOT A PART

NOT A PART

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

DOMENIGONI PARKWAY

WARREN ROAD

RAMP SECURED TRUCK COURT
80'-7" Page 136 of 601

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project
Air Quality and GHG Tables
ATTACHMENT A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
1 / 67
22-030 Simpson Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Page 138 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
2 / 67

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Offsite Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Offsite Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Grubbing/Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated

3.16. Grubbing/Clearing (2025) - Mitigated

3.17. Drainage/Utilities (2025) - Unmitigated

3.18. Drainage/Utilities (2025) - Mitigated

3.19. Drainage/Utilities (2026) - Unmitigated

3.20. Drainage/Utilities (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details Page 139 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
3 / 67

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use Page 140 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
4 / 67

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
5 / 67

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
6 / 67

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Page 143 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
7 / 67

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
8 / 67

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data Page 145 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
9 / 67

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 22-030 Simpson
Construction Start Date 5/4/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 8.60
Location 33.705441487178845, -117.0396340476545
County Riverside-South Coast
City Hemet
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5518
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
885 1000sqft 24.2 884,760 170,945 — — —

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
10 / 67
User Defined
Industrial
885 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — Trucks
Parking Lot 936 Space 8.42 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

11.6 Acre 11.6 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

4.52 Acre 4.52 0.00 0.00 — — Offsite
improvements

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. 33.9 70.4 116 0.28 15.0 5.92 36,127
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. 2.95 28.6 58.2 0.08 6.35 1.82 13,592
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. 3.85 19.6 33.9 0.06 4.20 1.47 9,444 Page 147 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
11 / 67
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. 0.70 3.57 6.19 0.01 0.77 0.27 1,564
% Reduced — — — — — — —
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No No No —
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 150 55.0 —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Mit. No No No No No No —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 4.25 70.4 116 0.28 15.0 5.92 36,127 Page 148 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
12 / 67
2026 33.9 40.2 89.4 0.11 6.48 1.85 18,391
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
2025 2.95 28.6 58.2 0.08 6.35 1.82 13,592
2026 2.85 28.2 56.6 0.08 6.35 1.82 13,435
Average Daily — — — — — — —
2025 1.28 19.6 33.9 0.06 4.20 1.47 9,444
2026 3.85 7.00 14.0 0.02 1.49 0.43 3,268
Annual — — — — — — —
2025 0.23 3.57 6.19 0.01 0.77 0.27 1,564
2026 0.70 1.28 2.55 < 0.005 0.27 0.08 541

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 —
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 — Page 149 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
13 / 67
Unmit. — — — — — — —
Exceeds (Annual) — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.38 32.9 105 0.48 30.9 8.31 52,119
Area 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water — — — — — — 3,024
Waste — — — — — — 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 35.1 33.3 144 0.49 30.9 8.37 61,069 Page 150 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
14 / 67
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Mobile 7.08 34.6 86.6 0.47 30.9 8.31 50,295
Area 21.3——————
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water—————— 3,024
Waste—————— 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 28.4 34.7 86.7 0.47 30.9 8.32 59,086
Average Daily———————
Mobile 5.16 25.6 65.7 0.34 22.4 6.04 36,950
Area 25.7 0.22 26.4 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 109
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water—————— 3,024
Waste—————— 1,568
Stationary < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Total 30.8 25.8 92.1 0.34 22.5 6.08 45,843
Annual———————
Mobile 0.94 4.67 12.0 0.06 4.10 1.10 6,117
Area 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 694
Water—————— 501
Waste—————— 260
Stationary < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total 5.63 4.72 16.8 0.06 4.10 1.11 7,590

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated Page 151 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
15 / 67
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.62 14.3 27.5 0.05 0.10 0.10 5,197
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 5.52 2.67 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.59 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 214 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.23 0.11 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — Page 152 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
16 / 67
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.11 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 35.4 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.04 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 1.00 0.00 0.17 0.04 186
Vendor < 0.005 0.24 0.07 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 225
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.11
Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — — Page 153 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
17 / 67
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 2.12 51.1 93.7 0.16 0.44 0.43 17,383 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 9.05 3.74 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.29 7.00 12.8 0.02 0.06 0.06 2,381
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 1.24 0.51 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05 1.28 2.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 394 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.23 0.09 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.21 3.63 0.00 0.61 0.14 672
Vendor 0.01 0.67 0.21 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 642 Page 154 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
18 / 67
Hauling 0.27 18.4 4.50 0.11 4.68 1.54 17,430
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.02 85.7
Vendor < 0.005 0.10 0.03 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 87.8
Hauling 0.04 2.67 0.62 0.02 0.64 0.21 2,385
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 14.2
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.5
Hauling 0.01 0.49 0.11 < 0.005 0.12 0.04 395

3.5. Offsite Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.6. Offsite Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Page 155 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
19 / 67
Onsite———————
Daily, Summer (Max)———————
Off-Road Equipment 1.56 36.4 55.5 0.09 0.51 0.48 9,149
Dust From Material
Movement
———— 0.83 0.09—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Average Daily———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.60 0.91 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 150 Dust From Material
Movement
———— 0.01 < 0.005—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.11 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 24.9 Dust From Material
Movement
———— < 0.005 < 0.005—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite———————
Daily, Summer (Max)———————
Worker 0.32 0.32 5.60 0.00 0.95 0.22 1,037
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Average Daily———————
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 15.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.63 Page 156 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
20 / 67
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.65 15.1 25.1 0.04 0.15 0.15 4,216
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.65 15.1 25.1 0.04 0.15 0.15 4,216
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — Page 157 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
21 / 67
Off-Road Equipment 0.19 4.48 7.48 0.01 0.05 0.04 1,254
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.82 1.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 1.66 1.63 28.7 0.00 4.86 1.14 5,323
Vendor 0.06 2.92 0.91 0.02 0.78 0.24 2,791
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 1.57 1.80 21.7 0.00 4.86 1.14 4,881
Vendor 0.05 3.06 0.93 0.02 0.78 0.24 2,786
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.58 6.83 0.00 1.44 0.34 1,472
Vendor 0.02 0.91 0.27 0.01 0.23 0.07 829
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.11 1.25 0.00 0.26 0.06 244
Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.05 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 137
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — — Page 158 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
22 / 67
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.65 15.1 25.1 0.04 0.15 0.15 4,215
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.65 15.1 25.1 0.04 0.15 0.15 4,215
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 3.24 5.41 0.01 0.03 0.03 907
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.59 0.99 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 150 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 1.57 1.46 26.7 0.00 4.86 1.14 5,206 Page 159 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
23 / 67
Vendor 0.06 2.80 0.87 0.02 0.78 0.24 2,748
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 1.48 1.63 20.3 0.00 4.86 1.14 4,775
Vendor 0.05 2.92 0.89 0.02 0.78 0.24 2,743
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.38 4.56 0.00 1.04 0.24 1,042
Vendor 0.01 0.63 0.19 < 0.005 0.17 0.05 591
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.83 0.00 0.19 0.04 173
Vendor < 0.005 0.12 0.03 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 97.8
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — Page 160 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
24 / 67

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.76 20.8 34.2 0.05 0.22 0.21 5,733
Paving 5.35 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.68 1.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 188 Paving 0.18 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.12 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.2 Paving 0.03 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 2.51 0.00 0.46 0.11 490
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 15.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — Page 161 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
25 / 67
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.48
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.08 4.28 3.85 0.01 0.12 0.11 536
Architectural Coatings 33.4 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — Page 162 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
26 / 67
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.39 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 48.4 Architectural Coatings 3.02 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.02 Architectural Coatings 0.55 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.29 5.39 0.00 0.98 0.23 1,050
Vendor 0.02 0.90 0.28 0.01 0.25 0.08 884
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.02 88.3
Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 79.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 14.6
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Grubbing/Clearing (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 163 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
27 / 67
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.16. Grubbing/Clearing (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.06 24.5 41.6 0.07 0.30 0.28 7,647
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.27 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 83.8 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.05 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.9 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.16 2.90 0.00 0.49 0.11 537
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 164 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
28 / 67
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 5.47
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.91 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. Drainage/Utilities (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.18. Drainage/Utilities (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — — Page 165 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
29 / 67
Off-Road Equipment 0.57 8.54 8.96 0.02 0.23 0.21 1,381
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.57 8.54 8.96 0.02 0.23 0.21 1,381
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.15 2.31 2.42 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 373 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.42 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 61.8 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite———————
Daily, Summer (Max)———————
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.93 0.00 0.33 0.08 358
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.46 0.00 0.33 0.08 328
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily———————
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.09 0.02 89.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 14.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 166 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
30 / 67

3.19. Drainage/Utilities (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —

3.20. Drainage/Utilities (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.57 8.53 8.95 0.02 0.23 0.21 1,381
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.57 8.53 8.95 0.02 0.23 0.21 1,381
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10 1.54 1.61 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 249 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 167 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
31 / 67
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.28 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 41.2 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 1.80 0.00 0.33 0.08 350
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.11 1.36 0.00 0.33 0.08 321
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.01 58.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 9.70
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Page 168 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
32 / 67
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

6.73 4.54 97.4 0.22 21.6 5.50 22,292
User Defined
Industrial

0.65 28.4 7.88 0.27 9.30 2.81 29,827
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 7.38 32.9 105 0.48 30.9 8.31 52,119
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

6.45 5.04 78.7 0.20 21.6 5.50 20,537
User Defined
Industrial

0.63 29.6 7.93 0.27 9.30 2.81 29,758
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 7.08 34.6 86.6 0.47 30.9 8.31 50,295
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.86 0.69 10.9 0.03 2.86 0.73 2,521

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
33 / 67
User Defined
Industrial

0.08 3.98 1.05 0.04 1.23 0.37 3,597
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.94 4.67 12.0 0.06 4.10 1.10 6,117

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
34 / 67
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 643
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 50.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 694

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — Page 171 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
35 / 67

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 172 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
36 / 67

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 6.32 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159 Total 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — —
Total 21.3 — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.47 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.43 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.79 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0 Page 173 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
37 / 67
Total 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
38 / 67
User Defined — — — — — — 0.00
Industrial
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 501
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 501

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 175 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
39 / 67
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max)———————
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
—————— 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
—————— 0.00
Parking Lot—————— 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
—————— 0.00
Total—————— 1,568
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
—————— 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
—————— 0.00
Parking Lot—————— 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
—————— 0.00
Total—————— 1,568
Annual———————
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
—————— 260
User Defined
Industrial
—————— 0.00
Parking Lot—————— 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
—————— 0.00
Total—————— 260

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated Page 176 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
40 / 67
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — Page 177 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
41 / 67
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Page 178 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
42 / 67
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Annual — — — — — — —
Fire Pump < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 179 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
43 / 67
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 180 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
44 / 67
Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Page 181 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
45 / 67
Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — Page 182 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
46 / 67
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/4/2025 5/25/2025 5.00 15.0 — Grading Grading 5/26/2025 8/1/2025 5.00 50.0 Building construction grading
Offsite Grading Grading 8/8/2025 8/15/2025 5.00 6.00 Offsite grading Building Construction Building Construction 8/2/2025 4/20/2026 5.00 186 — Paving Paving 4/3/2026 4/20/2026 5.00 12.0 — Page 183 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
47 / 67
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/21/2026 6/4/2026 5.00 33.0 — Grubbing/Clearing Trenching 8/2/2025 8/7/2025 5.00 4.00 — Drainage/Utilities Trenching 8/16/2025 4/2/2026 5.00 164 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Offsite Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Offsite Grading Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41 Offsite Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Offsite Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Offsite Grading Rollers Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Offsite Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 150 0.36 Offsite Grading Signal Boards Diesel Average 8.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Page 184 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
48 / 67
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 5.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Grubbing/Clearing Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grubbing/Clearing Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grubbing/Clearing Excavators Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grubbing/Clearing Signal Boards Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Drainage/Utilities Air Compressors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Drainage/Utilities Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Drainage/Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Drainage/Utilities Pumps Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Drainage/Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Page 185 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
49 / 67
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Offsite Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Offsite Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 148 0.41 Offsite Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Offsite Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Offsite Grading Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 6.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Offsite Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 150 0.36 Offsite Grading Signal Boards Diesel Average 8.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 5.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Grubbing/Clearing Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grubbing/Clearing Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grubbing/Clearing Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Page 186 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
50 / 67
Grubbing/Clearing Signal Boards Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Drainage/Utilities Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Drainage/Utilities Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Drainage/Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Drainage/Utilities Pumps Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Drainage/Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 13.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 7.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 47.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 20.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 241 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Offsite Grading — — — —
Offsite Grading Worker 72.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Offsite Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Offsite Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Offsite Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 372 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Page 187 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
51 / 67
Building Construction Vendor 87.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 35.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 75.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 28.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grubbing/Clearing————
Grubbing/Clearing Worker 37.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grubbing/Clearing Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grubbing/Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grubbing/Clearing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Drainage/Utilities————
Drainage/Utilities Worker 25.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Drainage/Utilities Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Drainage/Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Drainage/Utilities Onsite truck—— HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 13.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Page 188 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
52 / 67
Site Preparation Vendor 7.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 47.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 20.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 241 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Offsite Grading————
Offsite Grading Worker 72.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Offsite Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Offsite Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Offsite Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 372 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 87.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 35.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 75.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 28.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
53 / 67
Grubbing/Clearing — — — —
Grubbing/Clearing Worker 37.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grubbing/Clearing Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grubbing/Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grubbing/Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Drainage/Utilities — — — —
Drainage/Utilities Worker 25.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Drainage/Utilities Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Drainage/Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Drainage/Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 1,327,140 442,380 61,116

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 45.0 0.00 —
Grading 96,300 — 750 0.00 —
Offsite Grading — — 18.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.5 Page 190 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
54 / 67

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 8.42 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 11.6 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 4.52 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,549 133 53.1 413,591 30,837 2,642 1,057 8,232,368
User Defined
Industrial
335 26.5 8.85 89,269 10,154 804 268 2,703,113
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 191 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
55 / 67
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,549 133 53.1 413,591 30,837 2,642 1,057 8,232,368
User Defined
Industrial
335 26.5 8.85 89,269 10,154 804 268 2,703,113
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 1,327,140 442,380 64,070

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Page 192 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
56 / 67
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
4,071,976 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 321,448 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
4,071,976 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 321,448 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Page 193 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
57 / 67
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 204,600,750 2,710,455
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 204,600,750 2,710,455
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 832 —
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 — Page 194 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
58 / 67
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 832 —
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Page 195 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
59 / 67

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Fire Pump Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 8.00 0.73

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres Page 196 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
60 / 67

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 16.8 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Page 197 of 601 7.A. Page 331 of 987 22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
61 / 67
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 Page 198 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
62 / 67
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 45.7
AQ-DPM 14.4
Drinking Water 10.2
Lead Risk Housing 51.8
Pesticides 77.9
Toxic Releases 22.0
Traffic 32.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 3.64
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 54.3 Page 199 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
63 / 67
Cardio-vascular 69.6
Low Birth Weights 24.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 74.7
Housing 55.1
Linguistic 18.9
Poverty 87.8
Unemployment 89.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 11.79263442
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 9.80366996
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 8.520467086
High school enrollment 1.385859104
Preschool enrollment 84.46041319
Transportation —
Auto Access 18.88874631
Active commuting 21.86577698
Social —
2-parent households 44.52713974
Voting 32.45220069
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 74.06646991 Page 200 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
64 / 67
Park access 5.877069165
Retail density 4.69652252
Supermarket access 16.07853202
Tree canopy 1.539843449
Housing—
Homeownership 57.19235211
Housing habitability 34.65930964
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 30.9380213 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 15.57808289
Uncrowded housing 32.32388041
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 12.17759528
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 48.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 7.0
Cognitively Disabled 10.7
Physically Disabled 6.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 29.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 65.5 Page 201 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
65 / 67
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 53.2
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 28.6
Elderly 22.1
English Speaking 70.8
Foreign-born 28.9
Outdoor Workers 16.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 88.9
Traffic Density 25.5
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 89.6
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 37.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 48.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 2.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Page 202 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
66 / 67
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Adjusted lot acreage/building size per site plan.

Construction: Construction Phases Removed demolition phase since the site is vacant. Assumed the same construction schedule as the previously proposed Simpson project.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Conservatively assumed all equipment would run for 8 hours/day. Replaced tractors/loaders/backhoes with crawler tractors during the site preparation and grading phases to accurately assess site disturbance. Proportionally reduced original Simpson equipment mix as follows: site preparation and grading were reduced based on the revised site acreage disturbance (62% of original); building construction, architectural coating were reduced based on the revised square footage (74%); paving was kept consistent since a decrease in building SF would result in increased grading. All equipment associated with offsite development was kept the same as the original model since the disturbance acreage would remain consistent.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Assumed the same grading export as the previous Simpson project.

Construction: Trips and VMT SImilar to construction equipment mix, reduced construction trips as per revised site acreage and building SF percentage compared to the original Simpson project (62% of previous site disturbance, 74% of previous building square footage).

Operations: Vehicle Data Applied the same truck fleet mix as the previous Simpson study.

Operations: Fleet Mix Applied the same fleet mix as the previous Simpson study Operations: Off-Road Equipment Applied the same on-site cargo handling equipment as the previous Simpson study. Page 203 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
67 / 67
Operations: Energy Use No natural gas
Construction: Architectural Coatings Adjusted non residential coating to 50 g/L pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, consistent with the Previous Study

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
1 / 42
22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
2 / 42

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type Page 206 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
3 / 42

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
4 / 42

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment Page 208 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
5 / 42

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary Page 209 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
6 / 42

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data Page 210 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
7 / 42

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 22-030 Simpson LST
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 8.60
Location 33.705441487178845, -117.0396340476545
County Riverside-South Coast
City Hemet
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5518
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
885 1000sqft 24.2 884,760 170,945 — — —

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
8 / 42
User Defined 885 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — Trucks Industrial
Parking Lot 936 Space 8.42 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

11.6 Acre 11.6 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

4.52 Acre 4.52 0.00 0.00 — — Offsite
improvements

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 32.6 8.06 65.8 0.08 4.95 1.36 16,875
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 26.0 8.17 25.3 0.07 4.88 1.31 16,411
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.1 6.13 45.3 0.05 3.59 0.98 14,495
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.30 1.12 8.26 0.01 0.65 0.18 2,400
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No — Page 212 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
9 / 42
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 150 55.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No —
Exceeds (Annual) — — — — — — —
Threshold — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — — — — — — No

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.95 7.67 27.2 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,925
Area 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water — — — — — — 3,024
Waste — — — — — — 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 32.6 8.06 65.8 0.08 4.95 1.36 16,875
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.67 8.10 25.3 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,620
Area 21.3 — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water — — — — — — 3,024
Waste — — — — — — 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 26.0 8.17 25.3 0.07 4.88 1.31 16,411
Average Daily — — — — — — — Page 213 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
10 / 42
Mobile 3.39 5.90 18.9 0.05 3.54 0.94 5,601
Area 25.7 0.22 26.4 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 109
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water — — — — — — 3,024
Waste — — — — — — 1,568
Stationary < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Total 29.1 6.13 45.3 0.05 3.59 0.98 14,495
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.62 1.08 3.45 0.01 0.65 0.17 927
Area 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 694
Water — — — — — — 501
Waste — — — — — — 260
Stationary < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total 5.30 1.12 8.26 0.01 0.65 0.18 2,400

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.95 7.67 27.2 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,925
Area 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water — — — — — — 3,024
Waste — — — — — — 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 32.6 8.06 65.8 0.08 4.95 1.36 16,875
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 214 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
11 / 42
Mobile 4.67 8.10 25.3 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,620
Area 21.3——————
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water—————— 3,024
Waste—————— 1,568
Stationary 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 26.0 8.17 25.3 0.07 4.88 1.31 16,411
Average Daily———————
Mobile 3.39 5.90 18.9 0.05 3.54 0.94 5,601
Area 25.7 0.22 26.4 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 109
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,191
Water—————— 3,024
Waste—————— 1,568
Stationary < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Total 29.1 6.13 45.3 0.05 3.59 0.98 14,495
Annual———————
Mobile 0.62 1.08 3.45 0.01 0.65 0.17 927
Area 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 694
Water—————— 501
Waste—————— 260
Stationary < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total 5.30 1.12 8.26 0.01 0.65 0.18 2,400

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use Page 215 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
12 / 42

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

4.70 1.47 24.1 0.04 3.80 0.97 4,157
User Defined
Industrial

0.25 6.20 3.09 0.03 1.07 0.32 3,769
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.95 7.67 27.2 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,925
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

4.45 1.60 22.1 0.04 3.80 0.97 3,852
User Defined
Industrial

0.23 6.50 3.18 0.03 1.07 0.32 3,768
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.67 8.10 25.3 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,620
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.59 0.22 3.04 0.01 0.50 0.13 472
User Defined
Industrial

0.03 0.86 0.42 < 0.005 0.14 0.04 455
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.62 1.08 3.45 0.01 0.65 0.17 927 Page 216 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
13 / 42

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

4.70 1.47 24.1 0.04 3.80 0.97 4,157
User Defined
Industrial

0.25 6.20 3.09 0.03 1.07 0.32 3,769
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.95 7.67 27.2 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,925
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

4.45 1.60 22.1 0.04 3.80 0.97 3,852
User Defined
Industrial

0.23 6.50 3.18 0.03 1.07 0.32 3,768
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 4.67 8.10 25.3 0.07 4.87 1.30 7,620
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.59 0.22 3.04 0.01 0.50 0.13 472
User Defined
Industrial

0.03 0.86 0.42 < 0.005 0.14 0.04 455
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.62 1.08 3.45 0.01 0.65 0.17 927 Page 217 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
14 / 42

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 643
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 50.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
15 / 42
Total — — — — — — 694

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,885
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 307
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 4,191
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 643
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 50.8
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
16 / 42
Total — — — — — — 694

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
17 / 42
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
18 / 42
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 6.32 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159 Total 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — —
Total 21.3 — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.47 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.43 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.79 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0 Total 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — — Page 222 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
19 / 42
Landscape Equipment 6.32 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159 Total 27.7 0.32 38.5 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 159
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 19.0 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 2.33 — — — — — —
Total 21.3 — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.47 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.43 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.79 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0 Total 4.69 0.04 4.81 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 18.0

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
20 / 42
User Defined — — — — — — 0.00
Industrial
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 501
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 501

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 3,024

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
21 / 42
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 3,024
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 501
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 501

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1,568
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 225 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
22 / 42
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1,568
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 260
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 260

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1,568
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 226 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
23 / 42
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 1,568
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 1,568
Annual — — — — — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
— — — — — — 260
User Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — 0.00
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 260

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — Page 227 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
24 / 42

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — Page 228 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
25 / 42
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Annual — — — — — — —
Fire Pump < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Fire Pump 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74
Total 0.01 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 6.74 Page 229 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
26 / 42
Annual — — — — — — —
Fire Pump < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Page 230 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
27 / 42

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — Page 231 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
28 / 42
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — Page 232 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
29 / 42
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — Page 233 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
30 / 42
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,549 133 53.1 413,591 5,422 464 186 1,447,566
User Defined
Industrial
335 26.5 8.85 89,269 1,168 92.5 30.8 311,054
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
31 / 42

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
1,549 133 53.1 413,591 5,422 464 186 1,447,566
User Defined
Industrial
335 26.5 8.85 89,269 1,168 92.5 30.8 311,054
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 1,327,140 442,380 64,070

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250 Page 235 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
32 / 42

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
4,071,976 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 321,448 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
4,071,976 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 321,448 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption Page 236 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
33 / 42

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 204,600,750 2,710,455
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 204,600,750 2,710,455
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 832—
User Defined Industrial 0.00—
Parking Lot 0.00—
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00—
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00—

5.13.2. Mitigated Page 237 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
34 / 42
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 832 —
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Page 238 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
35 / 42
Fire Pump Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 8.00 0.73

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres Page 239 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
36 / 42

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 16.8 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Page 240 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
37 / 42
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. Page 241 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
38 / 42
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.1
AQ-PM 45.7
AQ-DPM 14.4
Drinking Water 10.2
Lead Risk Housing 51.8
Pesticides 77.9
Toxic Releases 22.0
Traffic 32.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 3.64
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 54.3
Cardio-vascular 69.6
Low Birth Weights 24.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Page 242 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
39 / 42
Education 74.7
Housing 55.1
Linguistic 18.9
Poverty 87.8
Unemployment 89.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 11.79263442
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 9.80366996
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 8.520467086
High school enrollment 1.385859104
Preschool enrollment 84.46041319
Transportation —
Auto Access 18.88874631
Active commuting 21.86577698
Social —
2-parent households 44.52713974
Voting 32.45220069
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 74.06646991
Park access 5.877069165
Retail density 4.69652252
Supermarket access 16.07853202 Page 243 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
40 / 42
Tree canopy 1.539843449
Housing—
Homeownership 57.19235211
Housing habitability 34.65930964
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 30.9380213 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 15.57808289
Uncrowded housing 32.32388041
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 12.17759528
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 48.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 7.0
Cognitively Disabled 10.7
Physically Disabled 6.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 29.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 65.5
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
41 / 42
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 53.2
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 28.6
Elderly 22.1
English Speaking 70.8
Foreign-born 28.9
Outdoor Workers 16.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 88.9
Traffic Density 25.5
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 89.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 37.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 48.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 2.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Page 245 of 601

7.A.

22-030 Simpson LST Detailed Report, 6/25/2025
42 / 42
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Adjusted lot acreage/building size per site plan.

Construction: Construction Phases Removed demolition phase since the site is vacant. Assumed the same construction schedule as the previously proposed Simpson project.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Conservatively assumed all equipment would run for 8 hours/day. Replaced tractors/loaders/backhoes with crawler tractors during the site preparation and grading phases to accurately assess site disturbance. Proportionally reduced original Simpson equipment mix as follows: site preparation and grading were reduced based on the revised site acreage disturbance (62% of original); building construction, architectural coating were reduced based on the revised square footage (74%); paving was kept consistent since a decrease in building SF would result in increased grading. All equipment associated with offsite development was kept the same as the original model since the disturbance acreage would remain consistent.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Assumed the same grading export as the previous Simpson project.

Construction: Trips and VMT SImilar to construction equipment mix, reduced construction trips as per revised site acreage and building SF percentage compared to the original Simpson project (62% of previous site disturbance, 74% of previous building square footage).

Operations: Vehicle Data To approximate localized operational mobile source emissions, trip lengths for each land use subtype were reduced proportionally. This reduced percentage was obtained by taking the proportion of Operational VMT to Localized VMT from the previous Simpson study (~17.5% for warehouse and ~11.5% for user defined industrial [trucks]).

Operations: Fleet Mix Applied the same fleet mix as the previous Simpson study Operations: Off-Road Equipment Applied the same on-site cargo handling equipment as the previous Simpson study.

Operations: Energy Use No natural gas Page 246 of 601

7.A.

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

7.A.

73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
GATE
RAMP

DOMENIGONI PARKWAY

SIMPSON ROAD

WARREN ROAD

SECURED TRUCK COURT
RAMP

RAMP RAMP
BLDG 1
884,760 S.F.

GATE
OFFICE
3,000 S.F.

OFFICE
6,000 S.F.

CLEAR HEIGHT: 50'

SECURED TRUCK COURT
4 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
2 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
4 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
170'-3". 1452' 396'-9"
201' 185' -
4". 590'
192' -
6".
60' 60'
TYP.
58'
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
60'
TYP.
60'
80'-7"

NOT A PART

NOT A PART

CONCEPTUAL
SITE PLAN SCHEME 7 SITE PLAN HEMET, CA
3800 E. Coast Highway, Ste 6
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
www.Herdman-ad.com
714.389.2800
[email protected] PROJECT
A SCALE:

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1" = 80'
A24-2097

05.12.2025

NEWLAND CAPITAL GROUP - SIMPSON RD

DOMENIGONI PARKWAY

WARREN ROAD
RAMP
BLDG 1
84,760 S.F.

LEAR HEIGHT: 50'

SECURED TRUCK COURT
590'
192' -
6".
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
60'
TYP.
60'
80'-7"

NOT A PART
C
S
3 C
w
7 i

PROJECT

NEWLAND CAPIT

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

SITE PLAN

7.A.

73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
GATE
RAMP

SIMPSON ROAD

SECURED TRUCK COURT
RAMP

RAMP RAMP
BLDG 1
884,760 S.F.

GATE
OFFICE
3,000 S.F.

OFFICE
6,000 S.F.

CLEAR HEIGHT: 50'

SECURED TRUCK COURT
4 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
2 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
4 0
'
D
R
I
V
E
WAY
170'-3". 1452' 396'-9"
201' 185' -
4". 590'
192' -
6".
60' 60'
TYP.
58'
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
60'
TYP.
60'
80'-7"

CONCEPTU

SITE PL
SCHEME 8 SITE PLAN HEMET, CA
3800 E. Coast Highway
Corona Del Mar, CA
www.Herdman-ad
714.389.2
info@Herdman-ad

PROJECT
A SCALE:

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1" = 80'
A
05 NEWLAND CAPITAL GROUP - SIMPSON RD

DOMENIGONI PARKWAY

WARREN ROAD
RAMP
BLDG 1
84,760 S.F.

LEAR HEIGHT: 50'

SECURED TRUCK COURT
590'
192' -
6".
73 DOCK HIGH DOORS
60'
TYP.
60'
80'-7"

NOT A PART
C
S
3 C
w
7 i

PROJECT

NEWLAND CAPIT

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

SITE PLAN

7.A.

NORTH
WEST
SOUTH
EAST

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

ELEVATIONS

7.A.

3 A210a
1 A210a
2 A210a
4 A210a
11 2727
22 A AP PB B
C CD D
E E
F F
H
H
J J
K K
L
L
M M
N N
33 44
55 6
6 7
7 88
99 1010
1111
1212
1313
1414
1515
1616
1717
1818
1919
2121
2222
2323
2424
2525
2626

WAREHOUSE
1,452'-0"
59'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 59'-0" 710'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" FUTURE OFFICE FUTURE OFFICE FUTURE OFFICE 1 A300a
2 A300a

PROPOSED FUTURE OFFICE AREA

CONCRETE WALL
10 Edelman
Irvine, CA, 92618
P 949.660.9128

CIVIL ENGINEERING

BRANDING

BUILDING MEASUREMENT

ARCHITECTURE

PLANNING

INTERIORS
JOB NO.:DRAWN BY.:PA/PM:

SHEET
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK.

CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT C:\_Revit\0204_ARCH_pebrahimiP2THV.rvt
9/24/2024 6:39:12 PM
T . ANAN
N.K.

IRV21-0204-00
BUILDING 1 - FLOOR

PLAN NEWLAND SIMPSON
ROAD

HEMET, CA
A120a

DATE REMARKS
2022-11-04 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 1 BUILDING 1 - FLOOR PLAN N 0 30' 60' 100' 300' 1"=60' SEE SHEET A010 FOR GENERAL NOTES

WALL LEGENDLEGEND
KEYNOTES:

FUTURE OFFICE

7.A.

7.A.

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

SOUTH VIEW

7.A.

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/10/25
A24-2097

SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION

7.A.

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

CORNER VIEW

7.A.

NEWLAND CAPITAL

SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA
07/02/25
A24-2097

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

7.A.

PORTION TO

BE VACATED

PORTION TO
BE VACATED CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO T FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of DATE: PLOT DATE:
10 edelman
irvine, ca 92618
p 949.660.9128
waremalcomb.com

LEADING DESIGN FOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

NEWLAND SIMPSON
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800
35655 SIMPSON ROAD
CITY OF HEMET, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CA IRV22-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25 AGENCY CONTACT LIST OWNER/DEVELOPER NEWLAND CAPITAL GROUP 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 214-4779 CONTACT: TY NEWLAND CIVIL ENGINEER WARE MALCOMB 10 EDELMAN IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 660-9128 CONTACT: LUKE CORSBIE CITY OF HEMET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 445 EAST FLORIDA AVENUE HEMET, CA 92543 (951) 765-2300 WATER & SEWER EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 2270 TRUMBLE ROAD PERRIS, CA 92570 (951) 928-3777 ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26100 MENIFEE ROAD MENIFEE, CA 92585 (800) 684-8123 GAS SOCALGAS CO. 280 EAST STETSON AVE HEMET, CA 92543 (800) 427-2200 TELEPHONE AT&T 2350 WEST FLORIDA AVE, NO 110 HEMET, CA 92545 (951) 658-9774 CABLE/INTERNET SPECTRUM 2887 WEST FLORIDA AVE HEMET, CA 92545 (888) 406-7063 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF HEMET, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF HEMET, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, LYING NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHERLY SIDELINE OF THE 500 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1999-441419 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPT AND RESERVE TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, ALL OIL, GAS, HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AND MINERALS OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO DRILL INTO, THROUGH, ONTO, USE AND OCCUPY ALL PARTS OF THE PROPERTY LYING MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES INCIDENTAL TO THE EXPLORATION AND FOR PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS, HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES OR MINERALS FROM THE PROPERTY OR OTHER LANDS, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO USE EITHER THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET OF THE SURFACE FOR ANY PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN GRANT DEED RECORDED 8-26-2021 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2021-0512512 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN NO. 465-140-042 AND 465-140-043 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 6, (2017.75) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819. IN THE CITY OF HEMET, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ZONING REQUIREMENTS NOTE: INDICATED ZONING INFORMATION IS FROM THE CITY OF HEMET ZONING ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AS OF THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY. ZONING AND RESTRICTIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED BY A GENERAL REQUEST AT THE PUBLIC COUNTER OF THE ABOVE NAMED DEPARTMENT. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID THIRD PARTY INFORMATION. THIS FIRM IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THE REPRESENTATION OF COMPLEX ZONING ORDINANCES. COMPLIANCE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY. ANY USER OF SAID INFORMATION IS URGED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL AGENCY DIRECTLY. ZONE: B-P (BUSINESS PARK) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: 20 FEET SETBACK ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL: 0 FEET SIDE: 0 FEET REAR: 0 FEET HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: 55 FEET SITE INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 35655 SIMPSON ROAD HEMET, CA 92596 EXISTING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 465-140-042 & 465-140-043 PARCEL 1 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: TBD PARCEL 2 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: TBD PARCEL 3 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: TBD GENERAL PLAN: MIXED USE (VARIES) ZONE: B-P (BUSINESS PARK) SCHOOL DISTRICT: HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY SERVICE AREA: N/A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT: N/A PER ALTA AREA: GROSS - 74.876 AC. (3,261,613.55 SQ. FT.) NET - 71.243 AC. (3,103,348.06 SQ. FT.) FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 06065C2085G, PANEL 2085 OF 3805. DATED 08/28/08 ZONE X - AREAS OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGED DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1FT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTS BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD. EXISTING LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED / VACANT LAND PROPOSED LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL / WAREHOUSING (CONDITIONAL USE) EXISTING PARKING: UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY PROPOSED PARKING: 1,276 AUTO STALLS, 420 TRAILER STALLS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 70,192.58 SF (1.61 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 2,660,905.84 SF (61.09 AC) BENCHMARK NGS BENCHMARK PID DX5332 NAVD 88 - ELEV 1472.99' THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WARE MALCOMB DATE: JUNE 27, 2023 EASEMENT NOTES COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE, PREPARED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, DATED 09/25/23. EXCEPTIONS: 1. NOTE #3 - AN EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR ONE DITCH, FLUME OR OTHER AQUEDUCT ACROSS THE LANDS OF ANY OTHER OWNER LYING BETWEEN THE LANDS OF SAID OWNERS AND THE SAN JACINTO RIVER RECORDED IN BOOK 43, PAGE 161, OF DEEDS, OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. IN FAVOR OF: EACH AND EVERY OWNER OF LANDS OF THE RANCHO JACINTO VIEJO. 2. NOTE #6 - AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1941 IN BOOK 523, PAGE 231, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN FAVOR OF: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. (30FT-WIDE, PLOTTED HEREON) 3. NOTE #8 - EASEMENTS FOR ROADWAY FACILITIES RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO 1999-472895, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN FAVOR OF: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. (100FT-WIDE, PLOTTED HEREON) 4. NOTE #9 - A CC&R RECORDED AUGUST 26, 2021 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2021-0512512, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (BLANKET EASEMENT) CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP NOTE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THIS PROPERTY INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER. \\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

TITLE SHEET
1 1

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025 WARE MALCOMB assumes no responsibility for utility locations.

The utilities shown on this drawing have been plotted from the best available information. It is, however, the contractorsresponsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS PER THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. DATED MAY 2, 2022, RESEARCH OF AVAILABLE MAPS INDICATES THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE. IN ADDITION, A REVIEW OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RCIT GIS WEBSITE INDICATES THAT THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAULT ZONE. FURTHERMORE, SCG DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY EVIDENCE OF FAULTING DURING THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT FAULT RUPTURE ON THE SITE IS CONSIDERED TO BE LOW. THE POTENTIAL FOR OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT, LATERAL SPREADING, TSUNAMIS, INUNDATION, SEICHES, FLOODING, AND SUBSIDENCE AFFECTING THE SITE IS CONSIDERED LOW. ACCORDING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.'S INVESTIGATION, THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE REGARDING LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ON SITE: "THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE INDICATES THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A ZONE OF MODERATE TO HIGH LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY. BASED ON THIS MAPPING, THE SCOPE OF THIS INVESTIGATION INCLUDED ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING, AND ENGINEERING ANAYLYSIS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SITE-SPECIFIC LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL." THE PROJECT DESIGN SHOULD FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. RECOMMENDATIONS: SEISMIC: BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS WERE CALCULATED ASSUMING THAT THE EXCEPTION IN SECTION 11.4.8 APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AT THIS SITE. HOWEVER, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD VERIFY THAT THIS EXCEPTION IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. CORROSION POTENTIAL: POLYETHYLENE PROTECTION IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED FOR CAST IRON OR DUCTILE IRON PIPES. THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO CONTACT A CORROSION ENGINEER TO PROVIDE A MORE THOROUGH EVALUATION. TREATMENT OF EXISTING SOILS (BUILDING PADS): SOME LOCALIZED AREAS OF DEEPER EXCAVATION MAY BE REQUIRED IF ANY ARTIFICIAL FILL OR LOOSE, POROUS, OR LOW DENSITY NATIVE SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED AT THE BASE OF THE OVEREXCAVATION. SHEET INDEX 1 TITLE SHEET
2 OVERALL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 SIMPSON RD

WINCHESTER RD DOMENIGONI PKWY SITE
WARREN RD 94' PROPOSED AC PAVING 2.0% 20' 12' 32' 47' 15' WARREN ROAD PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION (FULL WIDTH) CITY OF HEMET: SECONDARY SCALE: N.T.S EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER 10' 2.0% 47' 32' 15' 10' 12' 20' EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER

STREETSCAPE

ULTIMATE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

CENTERLINE

ULTIMATE

RIGHT-OF-WAY
STREETSCAPE 100' EXISTING AC PAVING 0.7% 37.44' 50' WARREN ROAD EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: N.T.S

EXISTING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

CENTERLINE

EXISTING
RIGHT-OF-WAY 50' 12.56' 1.95' 48.05' 94' PROPOSED AC PAVING 17.49' SIMPSON ROAD PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION - WEST OF WARREN ROAD (HALF WIDTH) CITY OF HEMET: SECONDARY SCALE: N.T.S 47' 32' 15' 12' 8' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER

CENTERLINE

ULTIMATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY 60' EXISTING AC PAVING 0.4% 14.51' 30' SIMPSON ROAD EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: N.T.S

EXISTING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

CENTERLINE

EXISTING
RIGHT-OF-WAY 30' 12.57' 2.0% 2.0%

EXISTING EDGE

OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING EDGE
OF PAVEMENT 0.3%
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX
3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800
4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800
5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38800 14.51'

EXISTING EDGE

OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAX 2.0%
FUTURE

ULTIMATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY 30' PROPOSED AC PAVING MATCH EX EOP AREA TO BE VACATED* RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE DEDICATED EXISTING PROPERTY* PROPOSED PARCEL 1 GROSS NET PROPOSED PARCEL 2 PROPOSED PARCEL 3 3,261,613.55 SF (74.88 AC) - - - - - 1,935,243.80 SF (44.23 AC)
2,452.36 SF (0.06 AC) - 784,509.53 SF (18.01 AC)
1,464.45 SF (0.03 AC) - 352,816.46 SF (8.10 AC) PROPERTY AREA TABLE SIMPSON ROAD WARREN ROAD - 113,062.82 SF (2.60 AC) -- - *AREA TO BE VACATED ADDED BACK TO PARCEL AREAS--- 75,980.94 SF (1.74 AC) 3' 3' 66' PROPOSED AC PAVING 17.49' SIMPSON ROAD PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION - EAST OF WARREN ROAD (HALF WIDTH) CITY OF HEMET: COLLECTOR SCALE: N.T.S 44' 22' 11' 12' 10' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER

CENTERLINE

ULTIMATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY 2.0% 2.0%
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 14.51'

EXISTING EDGE

OF PAVEMENT

EXISTING
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAX 2.0%
FUTURE

ULTIMATE
RIGHT-OF-WAY 30' PROPOSED AC PAVING MATCH EX EOP 12'
6 SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN