Agenda — Hemet City Council, March 10, 2026 (part 3 of 6)

7.A.

Page 391 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY 2 2
3 APN: 465-140-46 OWNER: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT APN: 465-140-46 OWNER: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT APN: 009-619-269 OWNER: HEMET 223, LLC APN: 465-130-019 OWNER: HO CHARLES Y APN: 465-130-005 OWNER: HO CHARLES Y APN: 465-140-15
OWNER: WALTON CALIF
APN: 465-140-32
OWNER: CITY OF HEMET LEVIE ROAD (DEDICATED PER PM 11761 & NOT ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)

EL FUEGO ROAD
(DEDICATED PER PM 11761 & NOT ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS)

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 44.00'

30.00'

60.00'
100.00'

30.00'

60.00'
500.00'
500.00'

30.00'

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT) PARCEL 3 - PORTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT TO BE VACATED 0.03 AC (1,464.45 SF)

94.00'

47.00'

47.00' 3.00'

3.00' PROPOSED PARCEL LINE PROPOSED PARCEL 1 44.23 AC (1,935,243.80 SF) PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF) PROPOSED PARCEL 3 8.10 AC (352,816.46 SF) 10 FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 1495 1495
1490 PROPOSED FIRE WATER PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED IRRIGATION WATER 221.34' 161.34' 161.34' 125.03' 192.54' 132.54'

74.90'
1492 1496
1496
1502 FFE = 1499.00
1492
1492
1493
1493
1494
1494 PARCEL 2 - PORTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT TO BE VACATED 0.06 AC (2,452.36 SF) SIMPSON RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 1.09 AC (47,277.52 SF) SIMPSON RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 1.09 AC (47,277.52 SF) WQ BASIN WARREN ROAD SIMPSON ROAD PROPOSED FIRE WATER N89°04'25"W 1,561.41' ∆=46°33'14" R=800.00' L=650.01' S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'
S00°02'43"W 2,138.02'
N89°04'25"W 1,024.66' S00°55'35"W 104.89' S45°37'39"E 658.18' ∆=3°41'30" R=2977.00' L=191.81' ∆=41°
49'03" R=1275.86' L=931.19'
N00°02'43"E 1,583.17'

17.00' ∆=0°56'31" R=2977.00' L=48.94' N89°04'25"W 531.92' N89°04'33"W 281.53' S83°46'39"W 112.40'

17.00' LIMITS OF EXISTING BRIDGE

MODEL MASTERS AIR PARK PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

20.00' 20.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 15.00' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED SCREENWALL

10.00' WARREN RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 0.03 AC (1,124.26 SF) S39°01'20"W 13.86' S00°55'35"W 45.82' ∆=11°29'17" R=817.00' L=163.81' ∆=9°45'05" R=173.71' L=29.56' ∆=13°21'00" R=135.00' L=31.46' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73' S45°38'36"E 81.24' S89°04'25"E 1,004.00' S89°04'25"E 230.49' S00°55'35"W 45.39' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' L=688.20' S45°37'39"E 81.35' 102.00 47.00' 55.00'

49.50'

47.00'

33.00'

25.00' S86°36'20"E 58.06' S89°04'25"E 211.19' S44°04'25"E 14.14' S86°11'06"W 73.73' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

5.00'
1877.44' TO

CL POPLAR
AVE 2662.77±' TO CL CALIFORNIA AVE

58.00'

72.00'
1502 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 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025
\\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

OVERALL

PROPOSED PARCEL MAP
2 2
0 SCALE: 1" = 50 100 200 100' NOTES 1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION. 2. AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W DEDICATIONS. LEGENDPARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CENTERLINE EX CONTOUR EX RECLAIMED WATER EX STORM DRAIN (1490) EX BLDG SURVEYOR NOTE: THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JEFFREY S. FARLESS, PLS 9115, DATED APRIL 11, 2022. AREA TO BE VACATED EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX FENCELINE (VARIOUS) EX OVERHEAD ELEC EX WATER MAIN AREA TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR 1490 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 1491 SLOPE 1.0% PROPOSED FIRE WATER PROPOSED SANIATARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM DRAIN OVERALL PARCEL LINE

Page 258 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 392 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY APN: 465-130-005 OWNER: HO CHARLES Y APN: 465-130-019 OWNER: HO CHARLES Y APN: 465-140-15
OWNER: WALTON CALIF SIMPSON ROAD
2 30.00'

60.00' 44.00' 44.00'

17.00' PROPOSED PARCEL LINE PROPOSED PARCEL 1 44.23 AC (1,935,243.80 SF) PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF) FFE = 1499.00 1490
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1497
1498
1499
1494
1493
1492
1492 FFE = 1499.00SIMPSON RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 1.09 AC (47,277.52 SF)

EL FUEGO ROAD
(DEDICATED PER PM 11761 & NOT ACCEPTED BY

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)
N89°04'25"W 1,561.41' ∆=46°33'14" R=800.00' L=650.01'
S00°02'43"W 2,138.02'
N00°02'43"E 1,583.17' PROPSED STREETSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

20.00' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

20.00' 20.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK 15.00' S89°04'25"E 1,004.00' S89°04'25"E 230.49' S00°55'35"W 45.39' PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK S86°36'20"E 58.06' S89°04'25"E 211.19'

47.00'

47.00' REFER TO SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN, SHEET 6, FOR LANE DIMENSIONS

49.50' PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF) S44°04'25"E 14.14' REFER TO SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN, SHEET 6, FOR LANE DIMENSIONS PROPOSED SCREEN WALL 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 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025
\\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

PROPOSED PARCEL MAP
3 3
0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60' NOTES 1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION. 2. AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W DEDICATIONS. SURVEYOR NOTE: THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JEFFREY S. FARLESS, PLS 9115, DATED APRIL 11, 2022. KEY MAP SCALE: NTS SEE SHEET 5

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET
4 MATCHLINE LEGENDPARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CENTERLINE EX CONTOUR EX RECLAIMED WATER EX STORM DRAIN (1490) EX BLDG AREA TO BE VACATED EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX FENCELINE (VARIOUS) EX OVERHEAD ELEC EX WATER MAIN AREA TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR 1490 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 1491 SLOPE 1.0% PROPOSED FIRE WATER PROPOSED SANIATARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM DRAIN OVERALL PARCEL LINE

Page 259 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 393 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY APN: 465-140-15
OWNER: WALTON CALIF
APN: 465-140-32
OWNER: CITY OF HEMET

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) APN: 465-140-46 OWNER: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

30.00' 44.00'
500.00' PROPOSED PARCEL LINE 10 FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 1495 1490
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1492
1492
1493
1493
1494
1494
1495
1494
1496 1497 1498
1495
1493
1494
1495 FFE = 1499.00 PROPOSED PARCEL 1 44.23 AC (1,935,243.80 SF) LEVIE ROAD (DEDICATED PER PM 11761 & NOT ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS) S00°02'43"W 2,138.02'
N00°02'43"E 1,583.17' 20.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 20.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK 15.00'

10.00' PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF)

EL FUEGO ROAD
(DEDICATED PER PM 11761 & NOT ACCEPTED BY

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS)

MODEL MASTERS AIR PARK PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

5.00' 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 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025
\\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

PROPOSED PARCEL MAP
4 4
0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60' NOTES 1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION. 2. AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W DEDICATIONS. SURVEYOR NOTE: THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JEFFREY S. FARLESS, PLS 9115, DATED APRIL 11, 2022. KEY MAP SCALE: NTS SEE SHEET 3 MATCHLINE LEGENDPARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CENTERLINE EX CONTOUR EX RECLAIMED WATER EX STORM DRAIN (1490) EX BLDG AREA TO BE VACATED EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX FENCELINE (VARIOUS) EX OVERHEAD ELEC EX WATER MAIN AREA TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR 1490 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 1491 SLOPE 1.0% PROPOSED FIRE WATER PROPOSED SANIATARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM DRAIN OVERALL PARCEL LINE

Page 260 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 394 of 987 ends

APN: 465-130-019 OWNER: HO CHARLES Y APN: 009-619-269 OWNER: HEMET 223, LCC SIMPSON ROAD

WARREN ROAD

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD

CONTROL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT) APN: 465-140-46 OWNER: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT APN: 465-140-46 OWNER: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 2 30.00'
3 100.00'

60.00'
500.00' PARCEL 3 - PORTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT TO BE VACATED 0.03 AC (1,464.45 SF)

3.00'

3.00'94.00'

47.00'

47.00' SIMPSON RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 1.09 AC (47,277.52SF) PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF) PROPOSED PARCEL 3 8.10 AC (352,816.46 SF) 1499 PARCEL 2 PORTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT TO BE VACATED 0.06 AC (2,452.36 SF) WQ BASIN

17.00' 1496 1500
1515
1505
1501 ∆=46°33'14" R=800.00' L=650.01'
S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'
N89°04'25"W 1,024.66' S00°55'35"W 104.89' S45°37'39"E 658.18' ∆=3°41'30" R=2977.00' L=191.81' ∆=0°56'31" R=2977.00' L=48.94' N89°04'25"W 531.92' S83°46'39"W 112.40' N89°04'33"W 281.53' LIMITS OF EXISTING BRIDGE SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPSED STREETSCAPE SETBACK

25.00' PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SETBACK

20.00' S39°01'20"W 13.86' S00°55'35"W 45.82' ∆=11°29'17" R=817.00' L=163.81' ∆=9°45'05" R=173.71' L=29.56' ∆=13°21'00" R=135.00' L=31.46' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73' S45°38'36"E 81.24' S89°04'25"E 230.49' S00°55'35"W 45.39' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' L=688.20' S45°37'39"E 81.35' PROPOSED SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPSED STREETSCAPE SETBACK WARREN RD - AREA TO BE DEDICATED BEYOND EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT 0.03 AC (1,124.26 SF) REFER TO SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN, SHEET 6, FOR LANE DIMENSIONS

49.50' PROPOSED PARCEL 2 18.01 AC (784,509.53 SF) S44°04'25"E 14.14' PROPSED STREETSCAPE SETBACK

25.00'

47.00'

33.00' REFER TO SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN, SHEET 6, FOR LANE DIMENSIONS REFER TO SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN, SHEET 6, FOR LANE DIMENSIONS 47.00' 55.00' 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 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60' NOTES 1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION. 2. AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W DEDICATIONS.

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025
\\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

PROPOSED PARCEL MAP
5 5 SURVEYOR NOTE: THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JEFFREY S. FARLESS, PLS 9115, DATED APRIL 11, 2022. KEY MAP SCALE: NTS SEE SHEET 3
MATCHLINE LEGENDPARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CENTERLINE EX CONTOUR EX RECLAIMED WATER EX STORM DRAIN (1490) EX BLDG AREA TO BE VACATED EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX FENCELINE (VARIOUS) EX OVERHEAD ELEC EX WATER MAIN AREA TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR 1490 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 1491 SLOPE 1.0% PROPOSED FIRE WATER PROPOSED SANIATARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPERTY LINE

Page 261 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 395 of 987 ends

12.00' 12.00' 12.00' 12.00' 12.00' 12.00' 32.00' 40.00 15.00' 15.00' 102.00'

12.00'

10.00'

11.00'

12.00'

49.50' 49.50'

15.00' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

8.00'

12.00'

8.00'

15.00' 30.00' 44.00' SIMPSON ROAD

WARREN ROAD FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

47.00' 59.00' FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE

15.00'

34.50' 34.50' 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 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/27/23 6 7/3/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' NOTES 1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR EASEMENT INFORMATION. 2. AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE R/W DEDICATIONS.

REGISTERED PROFES

SIONAL ENGINEER
ST

C I V I L
A TE
OF CA
LIFORNIA No. 72588
LUCAS
A. CORSB IE 07/03/2025
\\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Exhibits\IRV21-0204_Tentative Parcel Map.dwg 07/03/2025 CPATTERSON 1:1

SIMPSON & WARREN INTERSECTION PLAN
6 6 SURVEYOR NOTE: THE SURVEY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JEFFREY S. FARLESS, PLS 9115, DATED APRIL 11, 2022. LEGENDPARCEL LINE EASEMENT LINE EX CENTERLINE EX BLDG EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX FENCELINE (VARIOUS) PROPERTY LINE

Page 262 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 396 of 987 ends

S89°04'25"E 372.62'
N00°02'43"E 1,583.17' EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD PROPOSED BUILDING 1
FFE = 1499.00

SIMPSON ROAD
WARREN ROAD SECTION D-D REFER TO SHEET 14 & 15

SECTION A-A
REFER TO SHEET 11

SECTION B-B
REFER TO SHEET 12

SECTION C-C
REFER TO SHEET 13 EX 100FT ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN D1 BOTTOM = 1496.00 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN B3 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN A1 EX 100FT ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT EX 60FT WIDE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED 47FT HALF-WIDTH ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED 20FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 20FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 47FT WIDE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX 60FT WIDE PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT EX EMWD EASEMENT PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE ∆=14°45'19" R=135.00' L=34.77' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73' S45°38'46"E 81.16' S45°37'39"E 81.35' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' L=688.20' S00°55'35"W 45.39'

32.00'

47.00'

30.00'
N00°02'43"E 2,138.02' S86°11'06"W 73.73' ∆=41°49'03" R=1275.86' L=931.19' S44°22'02"W 2,161.65' ∆=3°41'30" R=2977.00' L=191.81' 47' 25FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK 25FT WIDE STREETSCAPE PROPOSED 94FT ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY S44°04'25"E 14.14' N39°35'11"E 16.01' S89°04'25"E 996.48' 25FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 25FT WIDE STREETSCAPE

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 500.00' EX WARREN RD BRIDGE 230.00' TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED 15FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 20FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 5FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 5FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED SIGHT TRIANGLE PROPOSED TEMPORARY LANE STRIPING UNTIL BRIDGE IS WIDENED PROPOSED 124.07' TAPER (8.1:1) EL FUEGO RD 20.00' S89°04'25"E 1,024.66' 5.00' PROPOSED SIGHT TRIANGLE S89°04'33"E 280.08' N83°46'39"E 112.40'

47.00'

32.00' 5.00' 44'

30.00' LEVIE RD PROPOSED 10 FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PROPOSED LEVEL SPREADER EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 15-16 D 12A 13B 14C 15-16 D 13B 12A ∆=0°56'31" R=2977.00' L=48.94' PROPOSED 25FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 25FT WIDE LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 33FT HALF-WIDTH ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED 47FT HALF-WIDTH ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 14C S89°04'25"E 1,215.18'

94.00' S89°04'25"E 531.92' PROPOSED 20FT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT

47.00' 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 50 100 200 100' 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. SITE LEGENDFLOWPATH FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CONCRETE SIDEWALK \\wma-arch.com\wm\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:35 PM CPATTERSON 1:1

PRELIMINARY OVERALL
SITE PLAN 0101 EARTHWORK QUANTITY ESTIMATE CUT (CY) FILL (CY) NET (CY) RAW* 65,700 207,400 141,700 (IMPORT) ADJUSTED** -- TOPSOIL REMOVAL (6IN)** - 56,300 - -- BUILDING SLAB (6IN)*** 22,000 - - -- AVG PAVEMENT (12IN)*** 50,800 - - -- UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASINS (4 TOTAL)**** 28,900 - - ADJUSTED + RAW 167,400 263,700 - TOTAL WITH ADJUSTED 167,400 263,700 96,300 (IMPORT) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (AC) = 75 AC NOTE: THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES HEREON ARE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE NECESSARY PERMITS DUE TO THE VARIATION IN SHRINKAGE, SUBSIDENCE, OVEREXCAVATION, OR OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THESE QUANTITIES. WARE MALCOMB DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. THE CONTRACTOR BIDDING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL PERFORM THEIR OWN QUANTITY TAKEOFF BEFORE SUBMITTING A BID FOR ANY PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THESE PLANS. *RAW CALCULATED BASED ON AN APPROXIMATE COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND FINISHED GRADE ONLY. THE QUANTITIES CALCULATED DO NOT INCLUDE OVEREXCAVATION REQUIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, UTILITY TRENCH SPOILS, SHRINKING AND SWELLING OF DISTURBED NATIVE SOILS, PAVING SECTIONS, OR BUILDING AND RETAINING WALL FOUNDATIONS. **ADJUSTED CALCULATED BASED ON ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION. LOWERING THE EXISTING GRADE BY 6IN TO ACCOUNT FOR TOPSOIL REMOVAL FROM SITE. LOWERING FINISHED GRADE FOR THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT BY 6IN FOR THE BUILDING SLAB, AND LOWERING FINISHED GRADE FOR THE PAVEMENT SECTIONS BY AN AVERAGE 12IN FOR THE PROPOSED PAVEMENT (CONCRETE & ASPHALT) AREAS. *** THICKNESS BASED ON DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS STATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, DATED 2022-05-02. **** DEPTH OF EACH BASIN BASED ON CROSS SECTION PROVIDED BY ADS, REFER TO WQMP DETAIL SHEETS. SHEET INDEX 01 PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE PLAN 02 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 03 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 04 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 05 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 06 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 07 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 08 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 09 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 10 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 11 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 12 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 13 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 14 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 15 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 16 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 17 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 18 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 19 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 20 WQMP PLAN 21 WQMP DETAILS 22 WQMP DETAILS 23 WQMP DETAILS 24 WQMP DETAILS 25 WQMP DETAILS 26 WQMP DETAILS BENCHMARK: NGS BENCHMARK PID DX5332 NAVD 88 - ELEV 1472.99' 23

Page 263 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 397 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY S89°04'25"E 1,215.18' (1495)
(1494)
(1497)
(1497)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1499)
(1499)
(1499)
(1495)
(1494)
(1496) (1496)
(1496)
(1497) SIMPSON ROAD PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 LIMIT OF PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO SITE SECTIONS FOR APPROX TIE IN TO EXISTING GRADE DESIGN.

N00°02'43"E 2,138.02'

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
47'
30' 20'
47' 0.3% 0.3% 1496.96 TC 1496.46 FS 1498.54 TC 1498.04 FS 1500.02 TC 1499.52 FS 1497.94 TC 1497.44 FS 1497.49 TC 1496.99 FS 1496.54 TC 1496.04 FS 1494.42 TC 1493.92 FS 1495.50 TC 1495.00 FS 1495.00 FL 1496.95 TC 1496.45 FS

1.9%

1.6%

1.9%

1.3%

1.5%

1.3%

2.0%

2.4%

1.5% 1.0%

1.6%

1.9%

1.6% 1497.40 FS 1498.62 FS 1499.05 FS 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% (1497.22) FS (1498.33) FS 1496.77 FL 1497.98 FL 1499.09 TC 1498.42 FL

2.0%

1.7%

2.0%

3.3%

4.7%

4.3%

3.1%

0.3% 1496.08 FL 1497.16 FL 1497.24 FL

1.9%
(1497.08) FS
(1496.77) FS
(1496.69) FS 1494.40 FS-GB 1499.23 TC 1498.57 FL 1498.68 TC 1498.18 FS 1497.28 TC 1496.78 FS 1498.00 TC 1497.50 FS 1498.48 TC 1497.98 FS 1498.14 TC 1497.47 FL 1497.39 TC 1496.73 FL 1.2%

1.4% 1499.00 DOOR 1492.68 TC 1492.18 FL 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS 996.48' 40.00'

26.00' 26.00' 20.00'

26.00'

6.00' EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 55.00' 70.00' 60.00' 40.00'

6.67'

26.00' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE SETBACK 20.00'
32' EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT 01 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 02 02 02 02 02 05 05 04 080808 01 05 06 10 10 11 13 06 14 14 19 (1496.55) FS (1495.34) FS (1495.14) FS 1499.28 FS 20 15.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 1498.44 FS 1498.62 FS 1497.54 FS 1497.35 FL

7.4%

2.0%
MAX

2.7% WALKWAY 2.0% MAX WALKWAY 2.0% MAX 1499.69 HP 1497.62 FL 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

1.9%

1.2%

2.0%

2.0% 1498.11 FS (1497.91) FS

2.0% 0.3% LANE STRIPING (TYP) LANE STRIPING (TYP)
(TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21(TYP) 21 2.0% MAX2.0% MAX 1,004.00' (TYP) 22 (TYP) 22 (TYP) 22 (TYP) 22 PROVIDE 10:1 TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING BEYOND PROPERTY LINE 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

SEE SHEET 03
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 06 MATCHLINE GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:36 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0202 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 23

Page 264 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 398 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY N00°02'43"E 1,583.17'
S89°04'25"E 1,215.18'
(1500)
(1500)
(1500)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1499)
(1499) (1499)
(1499)
(1499)
(1499) SIMPSON ROAD PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 PROPOSED BUILDING 2 FFE = 1500.00 LIMIT OF PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO SITE SECTIONS FOR APPROX TIE IN TO EXISTING GRADE DESIGN. LANDSCAPE SETBACK ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 32' 20'

1.9%

1.6% 1498.54 TC 1498.04 FS 1496.86 TC 1496.36 FS 1496.70 TC 1496.20 FS 1497.41 TC 1496.91 FS 1496.19 FL

1.6%

1.9%

1.5%

4.4%

11.4% 1.0%

1.9%

0.5%

1.4%

1.2% 3.1%

5.2% 0.3% 1499.73 FS (1499.44) FS 1499.09 FL 1500.04 FS 1499.76 FS 1499.40 FL 1500.65 FS 1500.36 FS 1499.70 FL

4.5% 13.0% 1500.94 FS 1500.61 FS 1500.69 TC 1500.03 FL 1494.40 FS-GB 1494.46 TC 1493.96 FS 1496.61 TC 1496.11 FS 1494.73 TC 1494.23 FS 1496.75 TC 1496.25 FS 1494.40 FS-GB

3.4%1498.85 FS 1499.07 TC 1498.57 FS 1495.13 TC 1494.63 FS 1500.22 TC 1499.55 FL 1499.23 TC 1498.57 FL1498.04 TC 1497.54 FS 1497.02 TC 1496.52 FS 0.1%

3.7% 1499.89 TC 1499.22 FL 1500.07 FS 0.3%

1.4% 1493.94 TC 1493.44 FS 1499.00 DOOR 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS 1492.71 FL 1493.72 FL

6.00' EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

26.00'

26.00' 26.00' 40.00' 60.00' 70.00' 55.00' 40.00'
30' EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT
1 06 05 03 03 02 02 02 0202 02 04 0808 08 10 10 11 13 13 04 14 14 19 47'
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE 1500.01 FS 1499.28 FS 1500.80 FS 1495.23 FL S86°36'20"E 58.06' S89°04'25"E 230.49' 1499.98 FL 1499.93 FS (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21

2.0%
MAX

2.0%

MAX LANE STRIPING (TYP) LANE STRIPING (TYP)

2.0%

2.0% 211.19' (TYP) 22 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

SEE SHEET 04
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 07 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 02

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:40 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0303 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 265 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 399 of 987 ends

S00°55'35"W 45.39' (1500)
(1500)
(1505)
(1510)
(1501)
(1501)
(1501)
(1502)
(1503)
(1504)
(1506)
(1507)
(1508)
(1509)
(1501)
(1502) (1503)
(1504)
(1504)
(1501)
(1502)
(1502)
(1502)
(1501)
(1502)
(1502) SIMPSON ROAD SIMPSON ROAD
WARREN ROAD PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM AREA = 24,373 SF ELEV 1496.00 EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT LIMIT OF PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO SITE SECTIONS FOR APPROX TIE IN TO EXISTING GRADE DESIGN.

S44°22'02"W 2,161.65' ∆=14°45'19" R=135.00' L=34.77' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' L=688.20' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 47'
32'
25'

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
33'
25' 47' 25' 50'
50' 47'
25' TIE INTO EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT 0.3% 0.3%

19.5%
5:1
6:1
4:1
5:1
4:1
5:1

14.2%

2.1%

1.7%

3.4%

3.6% 1501.39 FS 1501.03 FS 1501.00 TC 1500.33 FL 1501.56 HP1501.74 FS 1501.34 FS 1501.78 TC 1501.12 FL 1503.1± ME 1501.20 TC 1500.53 FL 1501.19 TC 1500.52 FL 1500.96 FS 1501.18 FS 1501.40 FS 1501.43 TC 1500.76 FL 1501.41 TC 1500.75 FL 1502.39 TC 1501.72 FL 1502.29 TC 1501.62 FL 1506.99 TC 1506.33 FL1507.06 TC 1506.39 FL 13' 1501.64 FS 1501.91 FS 1502.69 FS 1502.72 FS 1501.90 FL 1502.54 FS 1502.15 FS 0.3% 4:1 1496.05 FS 1496.01 FS

0.5%

6.5% 1501.08 FG 1508.30 FS 1503.01 FS 1502.8± ME
BASIN BERM 1501.00 FS

10.00' 1502.52 TC 1502.02 FL

0.4% 1500.45 FS 1498.64 FS 1498.24 FS
6:1 N39°35'11"E 16.01' 1507.06 FS

1.3%

4.8%

0.5%

0.6% 15.00'

6.67' EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT

6.00'

6.00' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION (TYP.) 06 07 09 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 18 03 03 30' EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX. ROADWAY FACILITIES EASEMENT LIMIT OF STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPE SETBACK LIMIT OF STREETSCAPELANDSCAPE SETBACK S44°04'25"E 14.14'

94.00' 100.00'

25.00'

25.00' PROPOSED 124.07' TAPER (8:1) 32' 40'
32'
32'
15'
25' 50' (1500.85) FS 1501.54 FS 1502.47 FS 1502.59 FS 1501.71 FS 13 13 1502.17 FS (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 2.0% MAX

2.0%
MAX

2.0% MAX

2.0%
MAX LANE STRIPING (TYP) LANE STRIPING (TYP) LANE STRIPING (TYP) LANE STRIPING (TYP) 1502.17 TC

1.4% 1501.50 FL 1502.14 FS (1501.75) FS

2.0% 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

SEE SHEET 05
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 08 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 03

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:45 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0404 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 266 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 400 of 987 ends

(1504)
(1504)
(1504)
S89°04'25"E 1,024.66' ∆=3°41'30" R=2977.00' L=191.81'
S44°22'02"W 2,161.65' EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT LANDSCAPE SETBACK EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION (TYP.) (1503)
(1502)
(1502)
(1502)
(1502)
(1501)

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 500.00'
230.00'
S89°04'25"E 531.92' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
33'
25' ∆=0°56'31" R=2977.00' L=48.94' (1502.02) FS (1503.57) FS (1503.63) FS (1502.92) FS (1504.34) FS (1503.56) FS
(1504.27) FS 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

SEE SHEET 04

MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:48 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0505 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 267 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 401 of 987 ends

N00°02'43"E 2,138.02' SD SD
(1493)
(1493)
(1493) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 1494.40 FS-GB 1493.77 FS-GB 1489.91 TC 1489.41 FL 1490.82 TC 1490.32 FL

0.4% 1.0% 1494.85 DOOR 1494.84 FS 1499.00 DOOR 1495.45 FS

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
(1494)
(1495)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1493)
1496
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1492)
(1493) 01 01 04 0408080808 080808 11 12 17 (1495.14) FS (1493.48) FS (1493.33) FS 15.00' 20 2.0% MAX 2.0% MAX 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

SEE SHEET 07
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 09 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02 MATCHLINE \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:38 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0606 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 268 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 402 of 987 ends

N00°02'43"E 1,583.17'
(1495)
(1495)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1497)
(1496)
(1496)
(1497)
(1497)
(1497)
(1498) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

0.5%

1.5% 1494.40 FS-GB 1494.40 FS-GB 1.0% 1.0% 1493.44 FS 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS 1492.46 FL 1493.70 HP 1491.60 TG (1497)
(1497)
(1497)
(1497)
(1498)
(1496) 0303 02 02 02 0404 080808 08 080808 11 12

4.0%

2.5% 11.3%8.8% (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 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

SEE SHEET 08
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 06
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 03 MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:45 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0707 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 269 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 403 of 987 ends

(1495)
(1495)
(1500)
(1505)
(1510)
(1510)
(1515)
(1515)
(1492)
(1492)
(1493)
(1493)
(1494)
(1494)
(1496)
(1496)
(1497)
(1497)
(1498)
(1498)
(1499) (1501)
(1502)
(1503)
(1504)
(1506)
(1507)
(1508)
(1509)
(1511)
(1511)
(1512)
(1512)
(1513)
(1513)
(1514)
(1514)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
(1498)
S44°22'02"W 2,161.65' S45°37'39"E 81.35' ∆=46°33'14" R=847.00' L=688.20' S45°38'46"E 81.16' ∆=29°25'35" R=753.00' L=386.73'

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'
47'
47'
25'
50'

15.8%

19.5%
3:1
3:1
7:1

3.9%

0.8%
2:1
BASIN BERM 1501.00 FS

25.00' EXISTING BRIDGE EXISTING STORM DRAIN CULVERT EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION (TYP.) (1495)
(1493)
(1494)
(1496)
(1497)
(1498)
(1499)
(1495)
(1496)
(1497)
(1498)

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 500.00'
230.00' 15 14 14 07 15

EX ROADWAY
FACILITIES EASEMENT ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMIT OF STREETSCAPE (VARIES) LANDSCAPE SETBACK LANDSCAPE SETBACK LIMIT OF STREETSCAPE PROPOSED STRIPING TAPER 425FT FROM BRIDGE PROPOSED STRIPING TAPER 50' PROPOSED INTERIM WARREN CL FROM BRIDGE (1499.94) FS (1515.67) FS
(1515.69) FS

2.0%
MAX

2.0%
MAX STRIPING (TYP) 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

SEE SHEET 07
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 04 MATCHLINE
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:40 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0808 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 270 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 404 of 987 ends

EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY SD SDSD SD
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 1498.13 TC 1497.63 FL N00°02'43"E 2,138.02'

2.2%

2.6% 1.0% 1.7%

0.2%

1.0%

1.1%

1.0%

2.1%

1.1%

2.2%

1.0%

1.1% 1494.40 FS-GB 1499.00 DOOR 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1498.40 TC 1497.90 FS 1498.43 TC 1497.93 FS 1498.40 TC 1497.90 FS 1498.40 TC 1497.90 FS 1498.34 TC 1497.84 FS 1497.62 TC 1497.12 FL 1497.13 TC 1496.63 FL 1497.30 TC 1496.80 FL 1496.25 TC 1495.75 FL 1495.85 TC 1495.35 FS 1493.93 TC 1493.43 FS 1492.30 TC 1491.80 FL 1493.51 TC 1493.01 FL

0.2%

2.7% 1493.35 FL 1495.58 FL1498.40 TC 1497.90 FS 1494.20 TC 1493.70 FS 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS 55.00' 70.00' 60.00'

26.00'

26.00' 26.00'

26.00'

26.00' 26.00' 40.00' 40.00'

26.00' 20.00'
(1493)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1494) 03 02 02 02 02 0101 04 0808 08 08 05 05 05 11 01 01 17 04 17 02 19 20.00' (1494.78) FS (1493.31) FS LANDSCAPE SETBACK 1493.38 FS PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 20 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 2.0% MAX 2.0% MAX (TYP) 22 (TYP) 22 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

SEE SHEET 10
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 06 MATCHLINE \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:37 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 0909 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 271 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 405 of 987 ends

S44°22'02"W 2,161.65' EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY SD SD SD SD (1496)(1496)
(1496) (1496)
(1496) (1496)
(1496) (1496)
(1496) (1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496) (1496)
(1497)
(1497)
(1497)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496)
(1496) PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
N00°02'43"E 1,583.17'
5'

1.0% 12.3%

3.2% 1.0% 1.0%

2.7%

1.5%

1.2%

2.1% 1494.40 FS-GB 1494.30 TC 1493.80 FS 1499.00 DOOR PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1499.24 TC 1498.74 FS 1498.52 TC 1498.02 FL 1497.86 TC 1497.36 FL 1497.05 TC 1496.55 FL 1499.00 DOOR 1495.00 FS

0.5% 1491.60 TG 1493.38 FL 1492.26 FL 40.00' 60.00' 70.00' 55.00'

40.00'

26.00'

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 500.00'
230.00' 03 03 0202 02 02 02 01 04 08 080808 05 11 01 12 19 PROPOSED 10 FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT

10.00'
(1496.05) FS
(1496.25) FS 04 04 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 22 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

SEE SHEET 09
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 07 MATCHLINE GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE / GRADE EXISTING SLOPE / GRADE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT ME MATCH EXISTING DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRADE 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:42 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 1010 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 272 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 406 of 987 ends

SD SD SD SDSD
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1494)
(1494)
(1495) (1495)
(1495)
(1493)
(1493)
(1494) (1494)
(1494)
(1494)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493)
(1493) 1497.31 TC 1496.81 FL

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
S86°11'06"W 73.73' ∆=41°49'03" R=1275.86' L=931.19' N00°02'43"E 2,138.02' 5'

1.0%

0.6%

1.7%

1.0%

0.5%

2.2%

1.7%

1.0%

0.5%

1.0% 1496.91 TC 1496.41 FS 1497.09 TC 1496.59 FS 1497.10 TC 1496.60 FS 1497.17 TC 1496.67 FS 1496.46 TC 1495.96 FS 1496.40 TC 1495.90 FS 1493.92 TC 1493.42 FL 1493.96 TC 1493.46 FL 1495.19 TC 1494.69 FL 1496.41 TC 1495.91 FL 1497.62 TC 1497.12 FL 1495.83 TC 1495.33 FL 1494.92 TC 1494.42 FL 0.9% 1495.68 TC 1495.18 FL 1493.44 TC 1492.94 FL 1493.95 TC 1493.45 FL 1495.39 TC 1494.89 FL 1496.84 TC 1496.34 FL

26.00'

26.00' 26.00' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE MONUMENTATION (TYP.) LANDSCAPE SETBACK 20.00'

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 230.00'
500.00' 02 02 01 01 01 01 05 05 05 05 01 01 01 01 01 12 17 17 02 10 FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT

10.00'
(1493.87) FS
(???) FS

40.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT (???) FS (???) FS 04 04 04 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 (TYP) 21 2.0% MAX (TYP) 22 (TYP) 22 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. GRADING LEGEND PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPE / GRADE EXISTING SLOPE / GRADE HP HIGH POINT LP LOW POINT ME MATCH EXISTING DOOR ELEVATION AT DOOR FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISHED GRADE FL FLOWLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK RIM RIM ELEVATION RL RIDGE LINE TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRADE 5280.00 (5280.0) 2.00% 2.00% KEY MAP SCALE:N.T.S. SEE SHEET 09 MATCHLINE \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Grading Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 12:43 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 1111 SHEET 11 SHEET 02 SHEET 09 SHEET 10 SHEET 07 SHEET 08 SHEET 06 SHEET 03 SHEET 04 SHEET 05 GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "A", PER CITY STD. NO. C-200 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB, TYPE "D", PER CITY STD. NO. C-203 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STD. NO. C-213 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY STD. NO. C-210A INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO UTLITY PLANS. STAIRS/STEPS PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AC BERM TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING. ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. SHALL MEET THE CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. BOLLARD CATCH BASIN INLET. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-215. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY OF HEMET STD. NO. C-201. TEMPORARY 180FT TRANSITION FROM EX EOP AT EDGE OF BRIDGE TO FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENT. CONSTRUCT 8" CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE "B", PER CITY STD. NO. C-201. FENCE PER ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING PLANS. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN. REFER TO WQMP PLAN & DETAILS. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY OF HEMET STD R-500B AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HEMET SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STD R-500 THROUGH R-503J. SCREENWALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS. LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. PARKING LOT STRIPING PER CITY OF HEMET STD P-400 & P-401. 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122 23

Page 273 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 407 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE

EX EDGE OF PAVEAC PAVING APPROXIMATE EX GRADE VALLEY GUTTER JOIN EXISTING @ EDGE OF PAVEMENT 47FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW CONCRETE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING MAX 3:1 SLOPE SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32'

EX EDGE OF PAVE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE
PROFILE CONTINUATION FROM 15+75.00
2%
30FT WIDE EX ROW

FLOWLINE
VARIES 1.0% 1.8% LANDSCAPING MAX 3:1 SLOPE 6IN CONCRETE CURB 15' 30FT WIDE EX ROW 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 6FT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (MAX 2% SLOPE) 1490 1500 1510 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 AC PAVING 6INCONCRETE CURB 6IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 6INCONCRETE CURB 6IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AC PAVING MATCH EX GRADE 2FT BENCH APPROXIMATE EX GRADE

PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE
PROFILE CONTINUEATION FROM 4+25.00 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 1.0% LANDSCAPING1.0% 0 SCALE: 1" = 10 20 40 20' 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:16 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1212 SECTION A-A (STA 0+00.00 TO STA 4+25.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' SECTION A-A (STA 15+7.00 TO STA 21+00.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' A
A
C
C
B
B
D
D 1111 1212 1313 14-15
14-15 23

Page 274 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 408 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE

EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER APPROXIMATE EX GRADE SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32'

EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PROFILE CONTINUEATION FROM 8+25.00
30FT WIDE EX ROW

FLOWLINE
2% 6FT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (MAX 2%
SLOPE) 15' JOIN EXISTING @ EDGE OF PAVEMENT
VARIES
30FT WIDE EX ROW
47FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW MATCH EXISTING GRADE 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 APPROXIMATE EX GRADE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE

PROPERTY LINE
PROFILE CONTINUEATION FROM 4+25.00 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

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.
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:15 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1313 SECTION B-B (STA 0+00.00 TO STA 4+25.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' SECTION B-B (STA 8+25.00 TO STA 14+00.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' 14-15 14-15 13 12 13 12 11 11
D
D
B
B
C
A
C
A 23

Page 275 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 409 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00

EX EDGE OF PAVE

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER

EX EDGE OF PAVE

WIDTH VARIES ULTIMATE ROW
(TRANSITION FROM 47FT TO 33FT) SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32' MATCHLINE @ 3+25.00
30FT WIDE EX ROW

FLOWLINE
2% 6FT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (MAX 2%
SLOPE) 15' JOIN EXISTING @ EDGE OF PAVEMENT
VARIES
30FT WIDE EX ROW MATCH EXISTING GRADE 1490 1500 1510 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 PROPOSED DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT BASIN BOTTOM = 1496.00 10 FT WIDE BERM ELEV. 1501.00 1 4
1 4 MATCH EXISTING GRADE

PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE
MATCHLINE @ 3+25.00
MATCHLINE @ 3+25.00 MATCH EXISTING GRADE 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

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.
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:19 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1414 SECTION C-C (STA 0+00.00 TO STA 3+25.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' SECTION C-C (STA 3+25.00 TO STA 8+00.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' 14-15 14-15 13 12 13 12 11 11
D
D
B
B
C
A
C
A 23

Page 276 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 410 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 PROPERTY LINE 6IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING GRADE 4FT TRUCK DOCK PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 APPROXIMATE EX GRADE PROFILE CONTINUATION FROM 7+25.00 LANDSCAPING AREA

3.7%

1.2%

1.1%
ACCESS EASEMENT 20.00'

2.0% ACCESS ROAD SCREENWALL 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 4FT TRUCK DOCK VALLEY GUTTER 6IN CONCRETE CURB

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LANDSCAPING AREA
PROFILE CONTINUATION FROM 4+25.00
MATCHLINE @ 12+75.00

1.0%

1.8%

1.4%
1 2 MATCH EXISTING GRADE 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 10 20 40 20' 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:21 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1515 SECTION D-D (STA 0+00.00 TO STA 4+25.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' SECTION D-D (STA 7+25.00 TO 12+75.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' 14-15 14-15 13 12 13 12 11 11
D
D
B
B
C
A
C
A 23

Page 277 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 411 of 987 ends

13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 WARREN ROAD 47FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
1 2 2FT BENCH MAX 2:1 SLOPE 6FT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (MAX 2% SLOPE)
FLOWLINE 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
WARREN ROAD CENTERLINE 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER WARREN ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 1 2 2FT BENCH MAX 2:1 SLOPE MATCH PROPOSED GRADE 6FT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (MAX 2% SLOPE) APPROXIMATE EX GRADE FLOWLINE 25' 10' 32'
MATCHLINE @ 12+75.00
MATCHLINE @ 12+75.00

2.0%

2.0%
25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK
10FT STREETSCAPE
WARREN ROAD 47FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW
10FT STREETSCAPE
25FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK VALLEY GUTTER 15' 32' 15' 10' 25' MATCH EXISTING GRADE 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 26 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 20 40 80 40' 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:19 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1616 SECTION D-D (STA 12+25.00 TO 17+50.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' 14-15 14-15 13 12 13 12 11 11
D
D
B
B
C
A
C
A 23

Page 278 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 412 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE

EX EDGE OF PAVEAC PAVING APPROXIMATE EX GRADE VALLEY GUTTER JOIN EXISTING @ EDGE OF PAVEMENT 47FT WIDE ULTIMATE ROW CONCRETE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING MAX 3:1 SLOPE SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32'

EX EDGE OF PAVE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE
PROFILE CONTINUATION FROM 15+75.00
2%
30FT WIDE EX ROW

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

Page 279 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 413 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE

EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER APPROXIMATE EX GRADE SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32'

EX EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PROFILE CONTINUEATION FROM 8+25.00
30FT WIDE EX ROW

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

Page 280 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 414 of 987 ends

1490 1500 1510 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00

EX EDGE OF PAVE

CL SIMPSON ROAD

EX PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE EX GRADE 8IN CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER

EX EDGE OF PAVE

WIDTH VARIES ULTIMATE ROW
(TRANSITION FROM 47FT TO 33FT) SIMPSON ROAD - ROAD WIDENING 32' MATCHLINE @ 3+25.00
30FT WIDE EX ROW

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

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.
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Site Sections.dwg 07/DD/25 12:19 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTION 1414 SECTION C-C (STA 0+00.00 TO STA 3+25.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' SECTION C-C (STA 3+25.00 TO STA 8+00.00) SCALE HORIZONTAL 1" = 20' VERTICAL 1" = 4' 14-15 14-15 13 12 13 12 11 11
D
D
B
B
C
A
C
A 23

Page 281 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 415 of 987 ends

3.7%

1.2%

1.1%
ACCESS EASEMENT 20.00'

2.0% ACCESS ROAD SCREENWALL 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00 4FT TRUCK DOCK VALLEY GUTTER 6IN CONCRETE CURB

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LANDSCAPING AREA
PROFILE CONTINUATION FROM 4+25.00
MATCHLINE @ 12+75.00

1.0%

1.8%

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

Page 282 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 416 of 987 ends

2.0%

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

Page 283 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 417 of 987 ends

EX 8" RECLAIMED WATER LATERAL EX 36" CMLC RECLAIMED WATERMAIN SD SD EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY 02 03 04 05 05 07 07 12 12 08 08 0808 08 09 10 17 14 16 01 01 02 04 02 18 07 07 1111 1111 EX 8" RECLAIMED 11 WATER LATERAL 09 PROPOSED EXTENSION OF EMWD SANITARY MAIN FROM EXISTING MANHOLE AT STA 121+15.08 PER EMWD PLAN SOUTHWEST HEMET/WINCHESTER INTERCEPTOR SEWER, MAP 4398, SHEET 17, APPROVED 04/21/92, REV 04/17/96. INV 1477.15 INV 1481.65 INV 1484.23 INV 1479.90 1480.42 INV INV 1477.91 05 05 05 05 SIMPSON ROAD LIMIT OF PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO SITE SECTIONS FOR APPROX TIE IN TO EXISTING GRADE DESIGN.

N00°02'43"E 1,593.97'
N00°02'43"E 2,138.02' PROPOSED BUILDING 1 FFE = 1499.00

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
47'
32'
20'
44'06 03 03 06 04 1491.60 TG 1487.00 INV 02 1489.40 TG 1485.73 INV 01 24" @ 0.006 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.000 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.000 FT/FT 04 1485.17 INV (BOTTOM OF CHAMBER) 03 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 LANDSCAPE SETBACK 15.00' UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN A1 TOP OF STONE: 1488.17 TOP OF CHAMBER: 1487.67 BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 1485.17 BOTTOM OF STONE: 1484.42 05 EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT LANDSCAPE SETBACKULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 264.00' HOSE PULL RADIUS (TYP) EX 24" CMLC WATERMAIN (TO BE REMOVED) HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR MH 1485.20 INV 30" Ø ACCESS MH 05 30" Ø ACCESS MH 05 13 PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 20.00' 07 0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60' 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 23 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. KEY MAP SCALE:N.T.S. WATER NOTES 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-344A 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER BOX PER EWMD STD B-344. 2" RECYCLED WATER SERVICE CONNECTION & METER BOX PER EWMD STD DWG PB-10 & PB10A. 2" DOMESTIC REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-597A. 12" FIRE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-993. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. 12" PVC C900 FIRE WATER MAIN. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY OF HEMET STD W-700A. INSTALL CONCRETE BOLLARDS. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION. CAP EX RECLAIMED WATER LATERAL AT MAIN. 6" C900 FIRE WATER LATERAL. 12" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-657. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. INSTALL 8" TO 2" REDUCER PER EMWD. 8" RECYCLED WATER CONNECTION & LATERAL PER EMWD STD PB-6. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER EMWD STD B-388. 2" RECYCLED WATER METER BOX PER EMWD STD B-344 2" RECYCLED WATER REDUCED PREASURE BLACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EMWD STD B-597A 010203040506070809101112131415161718 SEWER NOTES 24" SANITARY SEWER MAIN, S=0.005 FT/FT. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE, S=0.020 FT/FT MIN PER EMWD SECTION B.2.e SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-53. MAX 500 FT SEPARATION PER EMWD SECTION F. POINT OF CONNECTION 5 FEET OUTSIDE BUILDING. BACKWATER VALVE AND PUMP REQUIRED. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS. SANITARY CLEAN OUT PER EMWD STD SB-52. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION PER EMWD STD SB-177. SANITARY TERMINUS MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-58. 01020304050607 \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Utility Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 4:02 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 1717 NOTE: FIRE WATER LATERALS TO BUILDING RISERS AND PIVs WILL BE SHOWN ONCE RISER LOCATIONS ARE DETERMINED.

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 19 SEE SHEET 18 MATCHLINE STORM NOTES CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-300. V AND W PER PLAN. V-GUTTER GRATED CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-318. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-303. PROVIDE TRAFFIC RATED COVER. INSTALL HDPE STORM DRAIN, SIZE PER PLAN. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN, ADS STORMTECH CHAMBER SYSTEM OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH 30" Ø MIN ACCESS MH. REFER TO WQMP DETAIL SHEETS 21 THRU 25. INSTALL RIPRAP PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-315. ABOVEGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-319. CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF HEMET STD C-213. INSTALL FLARED END SECTION W/ RIP RAP VELOCITY DISSIPATION. TIE INTO EX STORM DRAIN. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. INSTALL 18" OUTLET PIPE. HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR STORMWATER PUMP STATION. STORMWATER LEVEL SPREADER. REFER TO DETAIL 01 ON SHEET 17. 010203040506070809101112131415 LEVEL SPREADER DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. 1 SECTION VIEW12" PERFORATED HDPE STORM PIPE WRAP IN NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE CLEAN GRADED CRUSHED STONE WRAP SIDES & BOTTOM IN NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 6" 6" 6" SHEET 17 SHEET 18 SHEET 19

Page 284 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 418 of 987 ends

SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SDSD SD EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY 08 08 08 07 07 07 11 11 11 N00°02'43"E 1,593.97'
N00°02'43"E 2,138.02' S86°11'06"W 73.73'
∆=41°49'03" R=1275.86' L=931.19' S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'
5'
5'
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN A1 TOP OF STONE: 1488.17 TOP OF CHAMBER: 1487.67 BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 1485.17 BOTTOM OF STONE: 1484.42 05 1492.78 TG 1488.86 INV 01 24" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 36" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 30" Ø ACCESS MH 1480.49 INV (BOTTOM OF CHAMBER) 05 1497.72 RIM 1480.74 INV 03 30" @ 0.009 FT/FT 04 1494.49 RIM 1485.97 INV 03 24" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 1491.63 RIM 1488.17 INV (TOP OF STONE) 05 1488.30 INV 05 UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN B3 TOP OF STONE: 1486.49 TOP OF CHAMBER: 1485.49 BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 1480.49 BOTTOM OF STONE: 1479.74 05 1486.49 INV 05 30" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 1498.11 RIM 1484.46 INV 0330" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 1497.77 RIM 1484.82 INV 0330" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 1491.60 TG 1485.38 INV 02 1495.97 RIM 1488.21 INV 03 1497.50 RIM 1488.81 INV 03 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 36" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04 PROPOSED 10FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 230.00'

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT) 20.00' LANDSCAPE SETBACK PROPOSED 10FT WIDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT

10.00' 264.00' HOSE PULL RADIUS (TYP) LANDSCAPE SETBACK 1493.75 RIM 1487.79 INV 03 1494.18 RIM 1486.29 INV 03 1494.64 RIM 1485.40 INV (E) 1484.79 INV (N) 03 1493.63 RIM 15 1484.79 INV 1492.92 INV(LEVEL SPREADER) 14 HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR MH 1480.80 INV 13 30" Ø ACCESS MH 05 15.00' PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 23 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
0 SCALE: 1" = 30 60 120 60' 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 contractors responsibility to field verify the location of all utilities prior to the commencement of any construction. \\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_Preliminary Utility Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 4:01 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 1818 SEE SHEET 17 MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 19
MATCHLINE KEY MAP SCALE:N.T.S. NOTE: FIRE WATER LATERALS TO BUILDING RISERS AND PIVs WILL BE SHOWN ONCE RISER LOCATIONS ARE DETERMINED. STORM NOTES CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-300. V AND W PER PLAN. V-GUTTER GRATED CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-318. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-303. PROVIDE TRAFFIC RATED COVER. INSTALL HDPE STORM DRAIN, SIZE PER PLAN. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN, ADS STORMTECH CHAMBER SYSTEM OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH 30" Ø MIN ACCESS MH. REFER TO WQMP DETAIL SHEETS 21 THRU 25. INSTALL RIPRAP PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-315. ABOVEGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-319. CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF HEMET STD C-213. INSTALL FLARED END SECTION W/ RIP RAP VELOCITY DISSIPATION. TIE INTO EX STORM DRAIN. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. INSTALL 18" OUTLET PIPE. HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR STORMWATER PUMP STATION. STORMWATER LEVEL SPREADER. REFER TO DETAIL 01 ON SHEET 17. 010203040506070809101112131415 WATER NOTES 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-344A 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER BOX PER EWMD STD B-344. 2" RECYCLED WATER SERVICE CONNECTION & METER BOX PER EWMD STD DWG PB-10 & PB10A. 2" DOMESTIC REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-597A. 12" FIRE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-993. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. 12" PVC C900 FIRE WATER MAIN. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY OF HEMET STD W-700A. INSTALL CONCRETE BOLLARDS. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION. CAP EX RECLAIMED WATER LATERAL AT MAIN. 6" C900 FIRE WATER LATERAL. 12" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-657. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. INSTALL 8" TO 2" REDUCER PER EMWD. 8" RECYCLED WATER CONNECTION & LATERAL PER EMWD STD PB-6. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER EMWD STD B-388. 2" RECYCLED WATER METER BOX PER EMWD STD B-344 2" RECYCLED WATER REDUCED PREASURE BLACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EMWD STD B-597A 010203040506070809101112131415161718 SEWER NOTES 24" SANITARY SEWER MAIN, S=0.005 FT/FT. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE, S=0.020 FT/FT MIN PER EMWD SECTION B.2.e SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-53. MAX 500 FT SEPARATION PER EMWD SECTION F. POINT OF CONNECTION 5 FEET OUTSIDE BUILDING. BACKWATER VALVE AND PUMP REQUIRED. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS. SANITARY CLEAN OUT PER EMWD STD SB-52. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION PER EMWD STD SB-177. SANITARY TERMINUS MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-58. 01020304050607 SHEET 17 SHEET 18 SHEET 19

Page 285 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 419 of 987 ends

SD N00°02'43"E 1,593.97'
S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
24" @ 0.002 FT/FT 04
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 500.00'
230.00' STUB FOR RUNON & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 2 06 07 EX DOMESTIC WATER LATERAL INV 1482.66 08 SIMPSON ROAD LIMIT OF PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO SITE SECTIONS FOR APPROX TIE IN TO EXISTING GRADE DESIGN.

S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'
N00°02'43"E 1,593.97'
S44°22'02"W 2,161.65'

WARREN ROAD

WARREN ROAD
180'

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
47'
32'
20'
47'
32'

SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK
33'
30'
25' 50' 47'
25' SCENIC HIGHWAY
LANDSCAPE SETBACK 06 ABOVE GROUND INFILTRATION BASIN D1 1496.00 BOTTOM ELEV 07 11 08 EXISTING BRIDGE 18" @ 0.005 FT/FT 04 1498.50 INV 12 1497.11 INV (E) (1497.05) INV (S)

SALT CREEK CHANNEL
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT) 10 LANDSCAPE SETBACK LANDSCAPE SETBACK ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT 25' SCENIC HIGHWAY LANDSCAPE SETBACK ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX PUBLIC & UTILITY EASEMENT EX ROADWAY & FACILITIES EASEMENT ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 25' STREETSCAPE ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX ROADWAY & FACILITIES EASEMENT 25' SCENIC HIGHWAY
LANDSCAPE SETBACK 50' 47' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
47'
47' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY EX ROADWAY & FACILITIES EASEMENT EX ROADWAY & FACILITIES EASEMENT 50'
50' EXISTING STORM DRAIN (UNDER
BRIDGE) EX 36" CMLC RECLAIMED WATERMAIN EX 24" CMLC WATERMAIN 25' STREETSCAPE
25' SCENIC HIGHWAY

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
25' STREETSCAPE
25' STREETSCAPE
25' SCENIC HIGHWAY
LANDSCAPE SETBACK 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

MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 18
MATCHLINE THIS SHEET MATCHLINE ABOVE RIGHT THIS SHEET MATCHLINE KEY MAP SCALE:N.T.S. NOTE: FIRE WATER LATERALS TO BUILDING RISERS AND PIVs WILL BE SHOWN ONCE RISER LOCATIONS ARE DETERMINED. STORM NOTES CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-300. V AND W PER PLAN. V-GUTTER GRATED CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-318. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-303. PROVIDE TRAFFIC RATED COVER. INSTALL HDPE STORM DRAIN, SIZE PER PLAN. UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN, ADS STORMTECH CHAMBER SYSTEM OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH 30" Ø MIN ACCESS MH. REFER TO WQMP DETAIL SHEETS 21 THRU 25. INSTALL RIPRAP PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-315. ABOVEGROUND INFILTRATION BASIN PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-319. CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF HEMET STD C-213. INSTALL FLARED END SECTION W/ RIP RAP VELOCITY DISSIPATION. TIE INTO EX STORM DRAIN. CONSTRUCT PARKWAY CULVERT PER CITY OF HEMET STD D-307. INSTALL 18" OUTLET PIPE. HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR STORMWATER PUMP STATION. STORMWATER LEVEL SPREADER. REFER TO DETAIL 01 ON SHEET 17. 010203040506070809101112131415 WATER NOTES 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-344A 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER BOX PER EWMD STD B-344. 2" RECYCLED WATER SERVICE CONNECTION & METER BOX PER EWMD STD DWG PB-10 & PB10A. 2" DOMESTIC REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-597A. 12" FIRE WATER SERVICE CONNECTION PER EWMD STD B-993. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. 12" PVC C900 FIRE WATER MAIN. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY OF HEMET STD W-700A. INSTALL CONCRETE BOLLARDS. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION. CAP EX RECLAIMED WATER LATERAL AT MAIN. 6" C900 FIRE WATER LATERAL. 12" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLY PER EWMD STD B-657. TIE INTO EXISTING CITY LATERAL. INSTALL 8" TO 2" REDUCER PER EMWD. 8" RECYCLED WATER CONNECTION & LATERAL PER EMWD STD PB-6. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT PER EMWD STD B-388. 2" RECYCLED WATER METER BOX PER EMWD STD B-344 2" RECYCLED WATER REDUCED PREASURE BLACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PER EMWD STD B-597A 010203040506070809101112131415161718 SEWER NOTES 24" SANITARY SEWER MAIN, S=0.005 FT/FT. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SDR 35 PVC SEWER PIPE, S=0.020 FT/FT MIN PER EMWD SECTION B.2.e SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-53. MAX 500 FT SEPARATION PER EMWD SECTION F. POINT OF CONNECTION 5 FEET OUTSIDE BUILDING. BACKWATER VALVE AND PUMP REQUIRED. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS. SANITARY CLEAN OUT PER EMWD STD SB-52. 6" SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION PER EMWD STD SB-177. SANITARY TERMINUS MANHOLE PER EMWD STD SB-58. 01020304050607 SHEET 17 SHEET 18 SHEET 19

Page 286 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 420 of 987 ends

S89°04'25"E 1,561.41'
S89°04'25"E 1,024.66'
S44°22'04"W 1,321.50'

50.00' 50.00'
S44°22'02"W 740.15'
Δ
=
41°4
9'0
3" R
=12

75.86' L
=
931.19' S89°04'25"E 1,561.41'
N00°02'43"E 2,138.02'
S86°11'06"W 73.73' EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY DMA-TABULAR SUMMARY DMA SURFACE TYPES AREA (SF) EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS FRACTION DMA RUNOFF FACTOR DMA TYPE / BMP TYPE VOLUME, VBMP, DMA 1 1A - CONCRETE / ASPHALT 305,484 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / PROPRIETARY INFILTRATION 1B - LANDSCAPE 91,606 0.1 0.11 CHAMBER 1C - ROOFS 439,733 1.0 0.89 DMA 2 2A - CONCRETE / ASPHALT 562,933 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / PROPRIETARY INFILTRATION CHAMBER 2B - LANDSCAPE 78,604 0.1 0.11 2C - ROOFS 443,347 1.0 0.89 DMA 6 6C - OFFSITE 78,379 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / INFILTRATION BASIN DMA 7 7A - LANDSCAPE 10,390 0.1 0.11 TYPE A / SELF-TREATING SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SIMPSON AVENUE

WARREN ROAD
SALT CREEK CHANNEL DMA 1 DMA 6
DMA 7 DMA 2 BMP 1: DMA 1 ADS STORMTECH CHAMBERS PROVIDED STORAGE: 144,622 CF SEE DETAIL 1 SHEETS 21 & 22 BMP 6: DMA 6 INFILTRATION BASIN PROVIDED VOLUME: 92,737 CF BOTTOM AREA: 24,373 SF BMP 1 OVERFLOW PIPE CONNECTION BMP 2 OVERFLOW PIPE CONNECTION BMP 2B HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR BMP 2A HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR BMP 1A HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SC-A SC-A SC-G SC-G SC-G SC-G SC-M SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-M SC-A SC-A SC-D SC-D SC-D BMP 6 OVERFLOW OUTLET TO EXISTING PIPE CULVERT THAT DISCHARGES TO SALT CREEK CHANNEL BASIN OVERFLOW PIPE STUB FOR RUNON & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED 36" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED 24" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED 36" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED LEVEL SPREADER OUTFALL THAT DISCHARGES TO SALT CREEK CHANNEL BMP 2: DMA 2 ADS STORMTECH CHAMBERS PROVIDED STORAGE: 197,382 CF SEE DETAIL 2 SHEETS 22 & 23 DMA-TABULAR SUMMARY DMA SURFACE TYPES AREA (SF) EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS FRACTION DMA RUNOFF FACTOR DMA TYPE / BMP TYPE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME, VBMP, CF BMP SIZING DMA 1 1A - CONCRETE / ASPHALT 305,484 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / PROPRIETARY INFILTRATION CHAMBER 38,242 PROVIDED VOLUME = 144,622 CF 1B - LANDSCAPE 91,606 0.1 0.11 1C - ROOFS 439,733 1.0 0.89 DMA 2 2A - CONCRETE / ASPHALT 562,933 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / PROPRIETARY INFILTRATION CHAMBER 51,356 PROVIDED VOLUME = 197,382 CF 2B - LANDSCAPE 78,604 0.1 0.11 2C - ROOFS 443,347 1.0 0.89 DMA 6 6C - OFFSITE 78,379 1.0 0.89 TYPE D / INFILTRATION BASIN 14,946 REQUIRED BOTTOM AREA = 2,746 SF PROPOSED BOTTOM AREA = 24,373 SF BASIN DEPTH = 4' SIDE SLOPES = 4:1 PROVIDED VOLUME =92,737 CF DMA 7 7A - LANDSCAPE 10,390 0.1 0.11 TYPE A / SELF-TREATING N/A N/A S89°04'25"E 1,561.41' S89°04'25"E 1,024.66' S44°22'04"W 1,321.50'

50.00' 50.00'
S44°22'02"W 740.15'
Δ
=
41°4
9'0
3" R
=12

WARREN ROAD
SALT CREEK CHANNEL DMA 1 DMA 6
DMA 7 DMA 2 BMP 1: DMA 1 ADS STORMTECH CHAMBERS PROVIDED STORAGE: 144,622 CF SEE DETAIL 1 SHEETS 21 & 22 BMP 6: DMA 6 INFILTRATION BASIN PROVIDED VOLUME: 92,737 CF BOTTOM AREA: 24,373 SF BMP 1 OVERFLOW PIPE CONNECTION BMP 2 OVERFLOW PIPE CONNECTION BMP 2B HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR BMP 2A HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR BMP 1A HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR SC-A SC-A SC-G SC-G SC-G SC-G SC-M SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-P SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-D SC-M SC-A SC-A SC-D SC-D SC-D BMP 6 OVERFLOW OUTLET TO EXISTING PIPE CULVERT THAT DISCHARGES TO SALT CREEK CHANNEL BASIN OVERFLOW PIPE STUB FOR RUNON & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED 36" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED 24" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED 36" PIPE TO PROPOSED OUTFALL PROPOSED LEVEL SPREADER OUTFALL THAT DISCHARGES TO SALT CREEK CHANNEL BMP 2: DMA 2 ADS STORMTECH CHAMBERS PROVIDED STORAGE: 197,382 CF SEE DETAIL 2 SHEETS 22 & 23 0 SCALE: 1" = 60 120 240 120' 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

Page 287 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 421 of 987 ends

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

Page 288 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 422 of 987 ends

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

Page 289 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 423 of 987 ends

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
35655 SIMPSON RD
HEMET, CA 92596 IRV21-0204 L. CORSBIE C. PATTERSON 07/11/2022 23 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION07/02/25
\\wma-arch.com\WM\IRV\21\0204\00\Civil\CAD\Sheets\Preliminary\IRV21-0204_WQMP Plan.dwg 07/DD/25 3:33 PM CPATTERSON 1:1 WQMP DETAILS 2323 SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S. DETAIL 2: DMA 2 ADS CHAMBER V(BMP) WATER ELEVATION (MAX 5FT) BASIN BOTTOM ELEVATION 100-YR 3-HR STORM EVENT WATER ELEVATION MIN 6FT WIDE TOP OF BERM (MAX 5FT FROM BASIN BOTTOM ELEVATION) 4 1 OUTLET PIPE INVERT PER PLAN LEVEL BOTTOM FOR MAX INFILTRATION 4 1
4 1 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY MIN 1 FT FREEBOARD OUTLET SRUCTURE CATCH BASIN GRATE ELEVATION SET @ 100-YR 3-HR WATER ELEVATION TRASH RACK ON TOP OF GRATE BOTTOM WIDTH* *REFER TO WQMP DMA TABULAR SUMMARY TABLE FOR REQUIRED & PROPOSED BASIN BOTTOM PER BMP. SCALE: 1" = ' N.T.S. DETAIL 5: TYPICAL INFILTRATION BASIN

Page 290 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 424 of 987 ends

General Plan Amendment
Mixed-Use to Business Park GP Map
Project Site

Page 291 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 425 of 987 ends

Please Click on the Link Below to view documents listed. https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents

Page 292 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 426 of 987 ends

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

NEWLAND SIMPSON ROAD PROJECT

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023120462
PREPARED FOR:

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

Page 293 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 427 of 987 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 294 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 428 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A SCAQMD RTC

Page 295 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 429 of 987 ends

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

Page 296 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 430 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 297 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 431 of 987 ends

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

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

Page 298 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 432 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 299 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 433 of 987 ends

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

Page 300 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 434 of 987 ends

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

Page 301 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 435 of 987 ends

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

Page 302 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 436 of 987 ends

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

Response A1.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 303 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 437 of 987 ends

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

Response A1.4: As discussed on page 5.2-8 within Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry of the Draft EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with the Project’s conversion of agricultural lands designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. The entirety of the site is currently in agricultural production. However, retention of onsite agricultural uses would be infeasible as it would prevent the development of onsite buildings, which would inhibit implementation of the Project as a whole. Replacement of agricultural resources offsite would be infeasible as creation of new farmland-status properties within the City is outside of the City and Applicant control.

Additional offsite mitigation would be infeasible as it would require the Applicant to purchase replacement acreage for farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland; however, offsite mitigation would not reduce impacts as the loss of agricultural land occurs within the Project parcels as the Project parcels have no relationship to the loss of agricultural lands within the City or County.

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

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

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

Response A1.5: The DOC will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted .

Page 304 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 438 of 987 ends

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

Page 305 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 439 of 987 ends

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

Page 306 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 440 of 987 ends

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

Page 307 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 441 of 987 ends

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

Response A2.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response A2.4: The Department of Waste Resources will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted .

Page 308 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 442 of 987 ends

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

Page 309 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 443 of 987 ends

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

Page 310 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 444 of 987 ends

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

Page 311 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 445 of 987 ends

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

Page 312 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 446 of 987 ends

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

Page 313 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 447 of 987 ends

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

Page 314 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 448 of 987 ends

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

Page 315 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 449 of 987 ends

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

Page 316 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 450 of 987 ends

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

Page 317 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 451 of 987 ends

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

Response A3.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

Response A3.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

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

Response A3.3: The analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology and utilized the average trip length for light-heavy (15.3-miles), medium-heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy-heavy trucks (39.9-miles) which is based on SCAQMD’s recommendations outlined in their implementation of the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) adopted in 2021. These trip lengths represent averages and therefore would include local trips as well as potential trips that may occur to the applicable port facilities. It would be speculative to assume that all Project truck trips would extend only to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and because the percentage of truck trips that would extend to the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.

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

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

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

Page 318 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 452 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 319 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 453 of 987 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-22
Final EIR
April 2025
The Draft EIR lists the cumulative projects in Draft EIR Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects List within Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Also, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.3.7, Cumulative Impacts, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution 1, if an individual project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. As detailed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality, the Project would not exceed any thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts related to toxics and health effects are discussed on pages 5.3-30 and 5.3-31 of Section 5.3, Air Quality in the Draft EIR, which describes that the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources, but that the Project’s emissions would equate to 1.45 and

0.73% of NOx and 0.05% of VOC emissions. This therefore has have the potential to correlate to a health risk, which would be less than cumulatively significant. Additionally, based on existing SCAQMD recommendations for Mobile Source Health Risk Assessments, the combined construction and operational impacts of the proposed Project at the closest effected receptor is estimated at 1.29 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would result in emissions that are far below existing SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s impacts on human health risks would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.

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

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

Comment A3.7: This comment states that SCAQMD staff reviewed the operational phase HRA air quality modeling files and states that the building downwash effect was modeled for a 238-horsepower diesel fire pump’s DPM emissions, but not modeled for truck idling DPM emissions. The comment states that by not modeling the building downwash effect for the trucking idling DPM emissions, the dispersion model results in an underestimation of ground-level pollutant concentrations near the building. The comment also states that 1 SCAQMD. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-workinggroup/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf

Page 320 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 454 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 321 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 455 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 322 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 456 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 323 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 457 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 324 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 458 of 987 ends

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

Response A3.12: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. According to State CEQA Guidelines, written responses to comments provided throughout the public comment period will be provided at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.13: This comment includes an email SCAQMD has received the Draft EIR and is being reviewed.

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

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

Page 325 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 459 of 987 ends

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

Page 326 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 460 of 987 ends

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

Page 327 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 461 of 987 ends

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

Response A4.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

Response A4.2: This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to City decisionmakers as part of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

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

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

Response A4.4: As discussed in Response A4.3, the only storm drain larger than 36 inches in diameter is proposed onsite and would be private. The Project Applicant would pay all necessary development feesand this comment will be forwarded to City decision makers as part of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Comment A4.5: This comment continues through the checklist and states that the Project is located within the limits of the Area Salt Creek Channel – Hemet South Drainage Plan and if the Project proposes additional impervious surface area, applicable fees would need to be paid prior to building permit issuance.

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

Page 328 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 462 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 329 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 463 of 987 ends

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

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

Page 330 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 464 of 987 ends

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

Page 331 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 465 of 987 ends

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

Response A5.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

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

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

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

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

Response A5.3: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is

Page 332 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 466 of 987 ends

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

Page 333 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 467 of 987 ends

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

Page 334 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 468 of 987 ends

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

Page 335 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 469 of 987 ends

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

Page 336 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 470 of 987 ends

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

Response A6.1: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Page 337 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 471 of 987 ends

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

Page 338 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 472 of 987 ends

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

Page 339 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 473 of 987 ends

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

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

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

Page 340 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 474 of 987 ends

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

Page 341 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 475 of 987 ends

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

Page 342 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 476 of 987 ends

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

Page 343 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 477 of 987 ends

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

Page 344 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 478 of 987 ends

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

Page 345 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 479 of 987 ends

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

Response O2.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is
Comment O2.2: This comment states that the proposed Project should utilize a net-zero significance threshold for GHG emissions in order to comply with California’s policy to be net-zero by 2045. The comment then lists some examples of two large mixed use projects in California that utilized net-zero thresholds. The comment concludes by stating that the net-zero GHG significance threshold is well-supported by plans such as CARB, and the Project should adopt the threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 346 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 480 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 347 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 481 of 987 ends

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

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

Response O2.7: The proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the use of Energy Star certified light bulbs and light features. In addition, the proposed Project would feature a 100% solar-ready roof which exceeds the Title 24 requirement of 15%. The proposed Project would also include 64 EV charging stations. While the proposed Project would not obtain a sustainable building certification, the proposed Project would go above and beyond the requirements of Title 24. Thus, the proposed Project would implement the measures mentioned in the comment.

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

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

Response O2.8: The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR evaluation. The commenters’ concerns were addressed above in Responses O2.2 through O2.7. In reviewing the above listed comments and making the appropriate revisions, when necessary, no significant new information was incorporated, and further, the impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR accurately reflect the proposed Project and subsequent potential environmental impacts. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, Draft EIR recirculation would not be warranted.

Page 348 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 482 of 987 ends

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

Page 349 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 483 of 987 ends

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

Page 350 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 484 of 987 ends

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

Page 351 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 485 of 987 ends

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

Page 352 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 486 of 987 ends

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

Page 353 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 487 of 987 ends

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

Page 354 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 488 of 987 ends

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

Page 355 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 489 of 987 ends

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

Page 356 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 490 of 987 ends

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

Page 357 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 491 of 987 ends

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

Page 358 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 492 of 987 ends

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

Page 359 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 493 of 987 ends

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

Page 360 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 494 of 987 ends

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

Page 361 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 495 of 987 ends

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

Page 362 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 496 of 987 ends

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

Page 363 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 497 of 987 ends

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

Page 364 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 498 of 987 ends

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

Page 365 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 499 of 987 ends

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

Page 366 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 500 of 987 ends

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

Page 367 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 501 of 987 ends

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

Page 368 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 502 of 987 ends

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

Page 369 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 503 of 987 ends

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

Page 370 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 504 of 987 ends

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

Page 371 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 505 of 987 ends

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

Page 372 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 506 of 987 ends

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

Page 373 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 507 of 987 ends

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

Page 374 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 508 of 987 ends

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

Page 375 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 509 of 987 ends

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

Page 376 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 510 of 987 ends

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

Page 377 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 511 of 987 ends

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

Page 378 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 512 of 987 ends

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

Page 379 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 513 of 987 ends

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

Page 380 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 514 of 987 ends

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

Page 381 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 515 of 987 ends

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

Page 382 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 516 of 987 ends

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

Page 383 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 517 of 987 ends

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

Page 384 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 518 of 987 ends

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

Page 385 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 519 of 987 ends

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

Page 386 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 520 of 987 ends

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

Page 387 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 521 of 987 ends

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

Page 388 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 522 of 987 ends

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

Page 389 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 523 of 987 ends

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

Page 390 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 524 of 987 ends

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

Page 391 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 525 of 987 ends

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

Page 392 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 526 of 987 ends

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

Page 393 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 527 of 987 ends

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

Page 394 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 528 of 987 ends

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

Page 395 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 529 of 987 ends

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

Page 396 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 530 of 987 ends

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

Page 397 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 531 of 987 ends

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

Page 398 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 532 of 987 ends

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

Page 399 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 533 of 987 ends

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

Page 400 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 534 of 987 ends

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

Page 401 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 535 of 987 ends

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

Page 402 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 536 of 987 ends

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

Page 403 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 537 of 987 ends

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

Page 404 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 538 of 987 ends

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

Page 405 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 539 of 987 ends

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

Page 406 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 540 of 987 ends

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

Page 407 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 541 of 987 ends

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

Page 408 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 542 of 987 ends

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

Page 409 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 543 of 987 ends

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

Page 410 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 544 of 987 ends

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

Page 411 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 545 of 987 ends

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

Page 412 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 546 of 987 ends

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

Page 413 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 547 of 987 ends

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

Page 414 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 548 of 987 ends

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

Page 415 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 549 of 987 ends

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

Page 416 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 550 of 987 ends

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

Page 417 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 551 of 987 ends

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

Page 418 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 552 of 987 ends

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

Page 419 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 553 of 987 ends

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

Page 420 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 554 of 987 ends

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

Page 421 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 555 of 987 ends

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

Page 422 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 556 of 987 ends

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

Page 423 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 557 of 987 ends

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

Page 424 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 558 of 987 ends

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

Page 425 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 559 of 987 ends

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

Page 426 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 560 of 987 ends

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

Page 427 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 561 of 987 ends

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

Page 428 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 562 of 987 ends

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

Page 429 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 563 of 987 ends

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

Page 430 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 564 of 987 ends

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

Page 431 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 565 of 987 ends

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

Page 432 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 566 of 987 ends

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

Page 433 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 567 of 987 ends

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

Page 434 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 568 of 987 ends

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

Page 435 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 569 of 987 ends

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

Page 436 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 570 of 987 ends

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

Page 437 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 571 of 987 ends

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

Page 438 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 572 of 987 ends

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

Page 439 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 573 of 987 ends

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

Page 440 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 574 of 987 ends

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

Page 441 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 575 of 987 ends

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

Page 442 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 576 of 987 ends

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

Page 443 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 577 of 987 ends

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

Page 444 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 578 of 987 ends

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

Page 445 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 579 of 987 ends

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

Page 446 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 580 of 987 ends

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

Page 447 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 581 of 987 ends

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

Page 448 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 582 of 987 ends

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

Page 449 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 583 of 987 ends

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

Page 450 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 584 of 987 ends

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

Page 451 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 585 of 987 ends

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

Page 452 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 586 of 987 ends

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

Page 453 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 587 of 987 ends

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

Page 454 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 588 of 987 ends

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

Page 455 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 589 of 987 ends

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

Page 456 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 590 of 987 ends

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

Page 457 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 591 of 987 ends

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

Page 458 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 592 of 987 ends

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

Page 459 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 593 of 987 ends

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

Page 460 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 594 of 987 ends

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

Page 461 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 595 of 987 ends

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

Page 462 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 596 of 987 ends

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

Page 463 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 597 of 987 ends

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

Page 464 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 598 of 987 ends

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

Page 465 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 599 of 987 ends

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

Page 466 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 600 of 987 ends

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

Page 467 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 601 of 987 ends

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

Page 468 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 602 of 987 ends

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

Page 469 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 603 of 987 ends

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

Page 470 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 604 of 987 ends

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

Page 471 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 605 of 987 ends

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

Page 472 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 606 of 987 ends

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

Page 473 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 607 of 987 ends

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

Page 474 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 608 of 987 ends

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

Page 475 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 609 of 987 ends

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

Page 476 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 610 of 987 ends

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

Page 477 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 611 of 987 ends

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

Page 478 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 612 of 987 ends

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

Page 479 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 613 of 987 ends

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

Page 480 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 614 of 987 ends

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

Page 481 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 615 of 987 ends

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

Page 482 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 616 of 987 ends

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

Page 483 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 617 of 987 ends

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

Page 484 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 618 of 987 ends

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

Page 485 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 619 of 987 ends

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

Page 486 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 620 of 987 ends

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

Page 487 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 621 of 987 ends

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

Page 488 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 622 of 987 ends

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

Page 489 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 623 of 987 ends

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

Page 490 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 624 of 987 ends

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

Page 491 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 625 of 987 ends

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

Page 492 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 626 of 987 ends

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

Page 493 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 627 of 987 ends

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

Page 494 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 628 of 987 ends

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

Page 495 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 629 of 987 ends

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

Page 496 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 630 of 987 ends

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

Page 497 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 631 of 987 ends

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

Page 498 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 632 of 987 ends

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

Page 499 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 633 of 987 ends

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

Page 500 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 634 of 987 ends

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

Page 501 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 635 of 987 ends

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

Page 502 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 636 of 987 ends

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

Page 503 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 637 of 987 ends

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

Page 504 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 638 of 987 ends

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

Page 505 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 639 of 987 ends

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

Page 506 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 640 of 987 ends

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

Page 507 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 641 of 987 ends

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

Page 508 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 642 of 987 ends

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

Page 509 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 643 of 987 ends

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

Page 510 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 644 of 987 ends

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

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

The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

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

Response O3.2: The comment provides a summary of the proposed Project and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

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

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

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

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

Page 511 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 645 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 512 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 646 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 513 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 647 of 987 ends

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

CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the Draft EIR provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the Project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin.

The Draft EIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project. Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area is described in Draft EIR Section 5.3, Air Quality. Table 5.3-2 provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (SRA 24 Perris Valley, SRA 25 Elsinore valley, and SRA 23 Metropolitan Riverside County). Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM2.5 federal standard had 5 exceedances in 2020, 13 exceedances in 2021, and 0 exceedances in 2022. While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.

As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, pollutant emissions associated with operation of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Construction of the proposed Project would generate regional emissions that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold for VOCs and NOx. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 to reduce the construction NOx and VOCs emissions. These measures would be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx and VOCs emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Also, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction. The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.55 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.

An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the Project. The Draft EIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 1.47 in one million for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.09 in one million.

Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be less than0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the Draft EIR determined that the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project for both construction and operation is calculated to

Page 514 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 648 of 987 ends

Newland Simpson Road Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Hemet 2-217
Final EIR
April 2025
be1.29, below the threshold of 10. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents from construction and operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

The Draft EIR also included a long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis on page 5.3-28 which determined Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the Draft EIR, the Project would not impact nearby residences or schools.

Comment O3.8: This comment states that the EIR does not adequately analyze the Projects consistency with the AQMP as the Project requires a land use change from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P) which was not analyzed by SCAG.

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

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

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

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

Page 515 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 649 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 516 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 650 of 987 ends

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

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

Response O3.12: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Responses O3.42 through O3.50 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The SCAG RTP/SCS provides overall regional goals, therefore the referenced goal is not a Project specific goal. As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not prevent SCAG from implementing actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Project includes measures related to building design, landscaping, and energy systems pursuant to Title 24 guidelines that would be consistent with SCAG’s goals. The Project consistency discussion within Table 5.11-1 provides justification for consistency with each goal. Thus, the Draft EIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.

Comment O3.13: The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include any analysis regarding the inconsistency of the proposed Project with some of the General Plan goals and policies, and lists Policies which the Project has potential to conflict with.

Response O3.13: The Draft EIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563.) A compiled table of applicable Hemet General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the policies mentioned throughout this comment letter are not mandatory policies for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. In the case of Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the courts found that “none of the policies on which appellant relies is mandatory, and [the] project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy.” Thus, CEQA does not require the Project to be consistent with each comment mentioned by the commenter. However, for the purposes of this response, a consistency analysis between the Project and the relevant goals and policies that were listed by the comment is provided below. As shown in the Table below (also included as Table 5.11-2 in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR), the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant policies, and no environmental effect would result from Project and General Plan policy inconsistency.

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

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

Page 517 of 601 ends

7.A.

Page 651 of 987 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 518 of 601 ends

Hemet City CouncilMarch 10, 2026

Hemet City Council
March 10, 2026