Hemet City Council
March 10, 2026

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:

Linda Krupa
Mayor (District 5)
Joe Males
Mayor Pro Tem (District 4)
Connie Howard-Clark
Council Member (District 1)
Jaculin "Jackie" Peterson
Council Member (District 2)
Tom Lodge
Council Member (District 3)

CITY STAFF:

Mark Prestwich
City Manager
Steven Graham
City Attorney
Jane Halstead
Interim City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL AMENDED AGENDA

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA
(Updates are highlighted in red text.)
Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Hemet Public Library, Second Floor
300 E. Latham Ave., Hemet, California 92543
REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber: In-person participation is limited in the Council Chamber in order to maintain social distancing room capacity.

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

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

Teleconference: POTENTIAL USE OF AB 2449’S JUST CAUSE OR EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES PROVISIONS - In the event a City Councilmember joins the meeting virtually under AB 2449, then members of the public can utilize the number below to participate via teleconference. If all participating Councilmembers are physically present, then the call-in feature will be unavailable, but the meeting can still be viewed at the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83677821066
Webinar ID: 836 7782 1066
Passcode: 745765
Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

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

Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or if you need agenda documents provided in an alternate format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (951) 765- 2395 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made (28CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II)

Page

1. REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 P.M.

2. CALL TO ORDER

3. ROLL CALL

4. INVOCATION

5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6. PRESENTATION

6.A. City of Hemet Citywide Branding Presentation
Staff Report #26-070 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file the City of Hemet Citywide Branding Presentation. 11 - 134

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

7.A. Public Hearing to Consider Revised Simpson Warehouse Project:

General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), and Tentative Parcel Map 38800 (MAP 23-008), to Allow Construction of One (1) Industrial Building Totaling 884,760 Square Feet, Tentative Parcel Map, and Associated Site Improvements. This is a Re-Noticed Hearing.

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

Staff Report #25-238 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council consider three (3) 135 - 735

potential options:

OPTION #1 - Approve the Project

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

Findings will be provided at the meeting with feedback from the Council on the Revised Project; and

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, approving the following entitlements for the Newland Simpson Project. Findings will be provided at the meeting with feedback from the Council on the Revised Project.

General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003): Changing the land
use designation from Mixed Use to Business Park for
consistency (Parcel 1 Only).

Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006): Allowing the
construction of a high-cube warehouse building totaling approximately 884,760 square feet and associated
improvements.

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

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

OPTION #2 – Deny the Project
Adopt a Resolution to deny certification of the FEIR
(SCH No. 2023120462) and denial of GPA 22 003, CUP 22 006, TPM 38800, VAR 24 003 and the requested Building Height Exception (collectively, the “Project Approvals”) as presented to the City Council on May 13, 2025 with additional input provided by the Council on the Revised Project.

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

8. RECEIVE AND FILE

8.A. The City of Hemet Warrant Registers for February 12, 2026, February 17, 2026, and February 19, 2026, and Periodic Payroll Payments Staff Report #26-066 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file the City of Hemet Warrant Registers and Periodic Payroll Payments.
737 - 771

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

9.A. Approval of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2026, the Special Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2026, and the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2026
Staff Report #26-032 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2026, the Special Meeting Minutes of February 18, 2026, and the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2026.
773 - 789

9.B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 25-003): Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance 2072 of the City of Hemet, California, Repealing and Restating Chapter 90 (Zoning), Article XI, Section 90-321 of the Hemet Municipal Code regulating Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in accordance with State law.

Environmental Review: Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, which is California’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law and which also regulates Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), as defined by section 66310 to 66342. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section §15061(b)(3), which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Staff Report #26-073 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
791 - 811

1. Find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA in accordance with California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, as defined by section 66314 to 66332 of the
Government Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) the “common sense exemption” as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

2. Waive further reading and adopt by title only an Ordinance 2072 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, adopting Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 25-003, Repealing and
Restating Chapter 90 (Zoning), Article XI, Section 90-321 of the Hemet Municipal Code regulating Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with State law.

9.C. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance 2073 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Amending Sections of the Hemet Municipal Code, Chapter 90 Article XLIII Art in Development, Sections 90-1501 through 90-1513 and Article XLIV. City-Initiated Art in Public Places, Section 90-1531 through 90-1536 for Adoption of an Art in Public Places Ordinance and Program.

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

Staff Report #26-069 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

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

2. Waive further reading and adopt by title only an Ordinance 2073 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Amending Sections of the Hemet Municipal Code, Chapter 90 Article XLIII Art in Development, Sections 90-1501 through 90-1513 and Article XLIV. City-Initiated Art in Public Places, Section 90-1531 through 90-1536 for Adoption of an Art in Public Places Ordinance and Program.

3. Direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the State Clearinghouse and the Riverside County Clerk.
813 - 898

9.D. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Second Amendment to the Cannabis Management Agreement with Hinderliter de Llamas, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute all Documents Related to the Agreement, and Authorizing the 899 - 930

Administrative Services Director to Establish Supplemental Appropriations of $125,000 in General Fund
Staff Report #26-067 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Second Amendment to the Cannabis Management Agreement with Hinderliter de Llamas, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute all Documents Related to the Agreement, and Authorizing the Administrative Services Director to Establish Supplemental Appropriations of $125,000 in General Fund.

9.E. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, Adopting a Policy for the Expedited Settlement of Claims Arising from Law Enforcement Operations
Staff Report #26-065 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, approving the “Expedited Settlement of Claims Arising from Law Enforcement Operations” policy and authorizing the City Manager to implement and enforce the policy.
931 - 938

9.F. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, for the Approval of the Public Library Server and Storage Replacement by Executing an Agreement with SHI International Corporation for a New Hyper-Converged Infrastructure (HCI) System, Veeam Backup Software, Networking Equipment and Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) in the amount of $463,945.39; Approve a Five Percent Contingency in the Amount of $23,197.27; Authorize the Administrative Services Director to Record a Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $487,142.66 in Fund 680 Information Technology; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Agreements, Purchase Orders, and all Other Supporting Documents Related to these Agreements
Staff Report #26-016 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, for the Approval of the Public Library Server and Storage Replacement by Executing an Agreement with SHI International Corporation for a New Hyper-Converged Infrastructure (HCI) System, Veeam Backup Software, Networking Equipment and Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) in the amount of $463,945.39; Approve a Five Percent 939 - 981

Contingency in the Amount of $23,197.27; Authorize the Administrative Services Director to Record a Supplemental Appropriation in the Amount of $487,142.66 in Fund 680 Information Technology; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Agreements, Purchase Orders, and all Other Supporting Documents Related to these Agreements.

10. DISCUSSION - ACTION ITEMS

10.A. Consideration of Allocations for Program Year 2026 Community Development Block Grant Funding
Staff Report #26-068 - Pdf
Recommendation:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Review, discuss and confirm the City Council Ad Hoc Committee's recommended allocations of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) estimated Program Year 2026 funding in the amount of $894,066.
983 - 987

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

11.A. Public Comment for Items Not Listed on the Agenda, but within Jurisdictional Matter

12. CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS

MAYOR KRUPA

1. Hemet Housing Authority

2. Hemet Public Library Board of Trustees

3. Cal Trans Liaison Ad-Hoc Committee

4. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission*

5. League of California Cities

6. Riverside County Transportation Commission

7. Riverside Transit Agency*

8. Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (RCA)*

9. Hemet San Jacinto Water Master Board*

10.WRCOG Regional Committees: Riverside County Waste Management Task Force

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

12.Arts and Culture Ad Hoc Committee

13.Downtown Theater Ad Hoc Committee

MAYOR PRO TEM MALES

1. League of California Cities

2. Planning Commission

3. Riverside County Transportation Commission

4. Riverside County Transit Agency *

5. Western Riverside Council of Governments *

6. Business Outreach Ad Hoc Committee

7. CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee

8. Clean Up/Graffiti Ad Hoc Committee

9. Homeless Outreach Ad Hoc Committee

10.Veterans Memorial Ad Hoc Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD-CLARK

1. Investment Oversight Committee

2. Planning Commission

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

4. Western Riverside County Conservation Authority (RCA)*

5. League of California Cities

6. Community Action Partnership

7. Hemet San Jacinto Water Master Board*

8. CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee

9. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)*

10.Hemet Youth Council Ad Hoc Committee

11.Downtown Theater Ad Hoc Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER LODGE

1. Hemet Housing Authority

2. Clean Up/Graffiti Ad Hoc Committee

3. League of California Cities

4. Hemet Youth Council Ad Hoc Committee

5. Hemet Stock Farm Development Ad Hoc Committee

COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON

1. Investment Oversight Committee

2. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency

3. Ramona Bowl Board of Directors

4. League of California Cities

5. Homeless Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

6. Business Outreach Ad-Hoc Committee

7. Cal Trans Liaison Ad-Hoc Committee

8. Veterans Memorial Ad-Hoc Committee

9. Arts and Culture Ad Hoc Committee

10.Hemet Stock Farm Development Ad Hoc Committee

CITY MANAGER MARK PRESTWICH

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

March 24, 2026:

1. Budget Workshop

2. Affordable Housing Ordinance Public Hearing

3. AI Policy Discussion

4. CR&R Amendment

5. 2025 Fire Department Year in Review

6. General Plan Progress Report

7. Sale and Purchase Agreement of Stetson and Sanderson April 14, 2026:

1. Weed Abatement Ordinance Public Hearing

14. ADJOURNMENT

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

Date & Time: March 5, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.

Meeting Schedule: The City Council of the City of Hemet regularly meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted. Closed and Special Sessions will be duly noticed as needed.

Council Agendas: Agendas for Regular Meetings are available for public review on the City’s website at hemetca.gov and in the City Clerk’s Office, 445 E. Florida Ave., typically by 4:00 p.m. on the Thursday prior to the meeting, but no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Agendas for Closed and Special Sessions are made available at least 72 hours prior to the meeting when possible, but no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting.

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

Use of Equipment: Please contact the City Clerk’s Office if requesting to use the chamber equipment as part of a scheduled presentation 24 hours prior to the meeting at (951) 765-2395.

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

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

Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient

Board member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk prior to the subject hearing or by verbal disclosure at the time of the hearing.

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Mar 10 2026
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Jennifer Cortes, Communications and Events Coordinator; ☒ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:

City of Hemet Citywide Branding Presentation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Receive and file the City of Hemet Citywide Branding Presentation.

BACKGROUND:

One of the City Council's Fiscal Year 2024-25 Strategic Plan "Highest Priority" Action Items included an initiative to update the Hemet brand, identity, and story.

Toward this end, the City of Hemet issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional branding services on January 13, 2025, seeking a comprehensive citywide brand strategy to enhance the City’s identity, attract businesses, and foster community pride.

The City received 21 proposals in response. After a thorough evaluation based on the RFP’s established evaluation criteria, the top five vendors were selected to be interviewed. Following the interviews, North Star Place Branding + Marketing was identified as the most qualified and costeffective vendor to meet the City’s branding needs.

North Star was awarded a contract for Branding + Marketing for Professional Citywide Branding Services with the City of Hemet on March 11, 2025.

An initial kickoff staff meeting was held on March 27, 2025.

The project timeline was approximately 36 weeks from contract execution, with deliverables and progress updates provided at key milestones.

ANALYSIS:

6.A.

The City of Hemet’s investment in professional branding services will have a lasting impact on residents, businesses, and visitors alike. The City’s updated identity will provide both short and longterm benefits, including:
 Economic Growth: A unified brand enhancing Hemet's appeal to potential businesses, developers, and investors.
 Community Pride: The project will engage residents and stakeholders, fostering a stronger sense of community identity.
 Tourism and Visibility: A refreshed brand will elevate Hemet's profile, attracting visitors and increasing foot traffic.
 Efficient Communication: The brand guidelines will streamline communication efforts across City departments.
 Enhanced Reputation: The project will transform the City’s brand, identity, and shared story, highlighting Hemet’s strengths, while welcoming new opportunities for growth.

DISCUSSION:

North Star's scope of work included the following phases:

Phase I: Market Research + Brand Strategy:
 Conducting a total of 21 stakeholder interviews + 7 focus groups (City of Hemet Department Heads, Hemet Unified School District Teachers, High School Seniors, Engaged Community Members, New Residents, Spanish Speaking Residents, and Long-Term Residents) a site visit + familiarization tour, online community survey, resulting in 1,003 respondents, external perception study, a consumer awareness + perception study, along with additional market research to define Hemet's brand DNA.

Phase II: Creative Development:
 Developing brand visuals, messaging, and marketing assets based on research findings with the support of the Hemet Creative Committee, composed of City Staff, City Officials, and community business leaders.

Phase III: Action + Implementation:
 Creating brand guidelines and an implementation strategy for consistent application across City Platforms.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

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

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

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

6.A.

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

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

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

The citywide branding project was funded in the City's Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1: Hemet, CA - Research & Strategy Presentation

6.A.

+ Hemet, CA
Research & Strategy Presentation
October 2025
1

6.A.

Branding
Process
2 Stakeholder&Community Education
Insight Gathering&Research
DNA&StrategyFormation
Creative Brand & Message Development
BrandActionIdeas

6.A.

mostly confirmation and articulation
not revelation
Today’s presentation is about research and strategy and does not include any creative elements.

6.A.

Research Instruments METHODOLOGY
4 ● Research and Planning Audit
● Communication and Media Audit
● Situation Analysis
● Site Visit:
○ Familiarization Tour
○ Stakeholder Interviews
○ Focus Groups
● Community Survey
● Brand Barometer
● Consumer Awareness + Perception Study (Quantitative)
● External Perception Study (Qualitative) Interviews about Hemet with external influencers

6.A.

Internal Qualitative Data
Site Visits
Intercepts
Focus Groups
Stakeholder Interviews
(in person, phone conversations, and via Zoom)

6.A.

Internal Qualitative Data THEMES
Greatest Assets
Simpson Park
Ramona Bowl
Diamond Valley Lake
Museum
Diversity
Outdoor recreation
San Jacinto College
Natural beauty
Small town feel
Dining variety
Close to Idyllwild
Hemet Theater
Retiree population
ED leadership
Auto mall
6 Culture
Opportunity
Fresh air
Mountain views
Resilience
Hopeful
Growth
Events
Traditions
Affordable
Scenic
Transformative
Unique
Beautiful
Potential
Secluded
Empty land
Serenity
Distressed
Pleasant
Developing
Accessible
Hidden gem
In need
Challenging
Overlooked
Improving
Variety
Best Descriptors

6.A.

Opportunities
Airport
Mtn bike races/trails
Travel sports tourism
Mixed use and multi-family housing
Beautify city
Tell a more recent story
More events at Ramona Bowl
Affordability
Trade schools / on the site training
Challenges
Florida Ave.

Homeless
Perception of crime
Run-down motels
Lack of awareness
Diversify housing opportunities
Store fronts/aesthetics
Hospital reputation
Too many Dollar Stores
Internal Qualitative Data THEMES
Missing
Specialized healthcare
Cohesion from departments
Cohesive and known plan / vision
A reason to visit
Resident pride
Activities for younger demo
Amenities for young families
Public pool / splash pad
Up-to-date mall
Minority leadership
Internships for high schoolers
Greenery / vibrancy
Night life
Youth sports / rec leagues
7

6.A.

Internal Qualitative Data THEMES
Most Important to Identity
Natural beauty
Diversity / culture
Mountains
Agricultural heritage
Trees lining Florida Ave
Train Depot 8
What We Think Outsiders Say
“There’s not much there.”
“Don’t go there.”
“It’s all crime, drugs and homeless.”
“It’s all homeless, with nothing to do.”
“Come home before the sun goes down.”
“They don’t actually know us.”
“They have a good view of the mountains.”
“Where’s that?”

6.A.

CommunitySurvey
9 1,003 Respondents

6.A.

CommunitySurvey
Other:
● Boring, nothing to do
● Unsafe in parts, at certain times
● Has potential, needs a lot of work
10 Which of the following do you think best describe Hemet? Choose up to two answers.

6.A.

CommunitySurvey In your opinion, what are Hemet's greatest assets? Choose up to two answers.
11 Other:
● Affordable cost of living
● Proximity to other communities and
family members
● Heritage, traditional feel
● Skate park

6.A.

CommunitySurvey What is the first adjective or descriptive phrase that comes to mind for each of the following places in Riverside County?
12 Murrieta
● Nice, clean
● Safe
● Crowded, busy
Menifee
● Growing, new
● Nice, clean
● Shopping
Temecula
● Expensive
● Crowded, traffic
● Wine country
San Jacinto
● Growing, improving
● Run-down
● Soboba Casino
Perris
● Run-down, dirty
● Warehouses
● Unsafe

6.A.

CommunitySurvey What distinguishes Hemet from other nearby communities in Riverside County?
13 Natural Beauty and Access
● “Hemet is closer to nature and outdoors activities.”
● “Hemet has beautiful natural scenery that gives me
a sense of peace even when I’m driving on busy
Florida Ave.”
● “Its proximity to natural attractions like the San
Jacinto Mountains and Hemet Lake.”
Connected Community/More Laid Back
● “Hemet is a tight knit community with people that
care.”
● “Has somewhat of a small town feel to it.”
● “Small town vibes, honesty, community, culture.”
● “Hemet stands out from nearby communities
because of its deep generational roots, small-town
charm, and peaceful pace of life.”
Affordability and Value
● “Hemet is more affordable than most other nearby
communities, but also has more options for grocery
stores, shopping, restaurants, etc. than comparable
affordable communities.”
● “Cheaper housing, good size town and great
businesses opening up.”
● “Scenic and affordable neighborhoods, custom built
homes with character.”
Challenges with Homelessness, Safety, and Image
● “Hemet has more challenges with public safety,
image, and homelessness, leaving a negative image.”
● “Highly visible homelessness, old run down
businesses and buildings.”
● “I do feel like I see way more homeless in our town
than others.”

6.A.

CommunitySurvey In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges currently facing Hemet? Choose up to two answers.
14 Other:
● All of the above
● Emphasis on addressing poverty
and unhoused population

6.A.

CommunitySurvey In your opinion, what is missing in Hemet? Choose up to two answers.
15 Other:
● All of the above
● More safe places with things to do
● Cleanliness
● Leadership that demonstrates care
for the city

6.A.

CommunitySurvey In your opinion, please rate the following Hemet attributes and characteristics on a scale from 1-5, where 1 is "Poor" and 5 is "Excellent." 16

6.A.

Brand Character
17

6.A.

Community Survey Would you like to answer more questions about visual elements and the brand character of Hemet?
18

6.A.

Community Survey
19 The pairs of phrases below represent opposite characteristics. Please indicate which phrase is a better descriptor for Hemet by marking a bubble on the spectrum between one and the other.

Spontaneous,
high-energy
Cutting-edge
Modern,
progressive
Accessible to all
Careful thinking,
planning
Established
Traditional
Upscale

6.A.

Community Survey
20 The pairs of phrases below represent opposite characteristics. Please indicate which phrase is a better descriptor for Hemet by marking a bubble on the spectrum between one and the other.

Bold
Realistic
Subtle Fun
Idealistic
Serious

6.A.

Community Survey
21 Which vehicle best represents
the personality of Hemet?

26.44%
Pickup Truck

6.A.

RV

17.67%
Pickup Truck

26.44%
Electric Sedan

1.51%
Community Survey
Off-Road SUV

10.27%
Minivan

22.21%
Luxury SUV

1.21%
Motorcycle

2.87%
Classic Car

17.82%
22 Which of the images below best represents the personality of Hemet? Vehicles

6.A.

Community Survey Which Building/Architectural Style best represents the personality of Hemet?

42.16%
23 Suburban Home

6.A.

Community Survey
24 Which of the images below best represents the personality of Hemet? Buildings/Architectural Styles
Urban Living

11.57%
Suburban
Home

42.16%
Modern Home

0.76%
Main Street

10.81%
Farmhouse

16.44%
Corporate
Offices

0.30%
Rustic Cabin

4.11%
Historic Home

13.85%

6.A.

Community Survey Which Brand Personas/Archetypes best represents the personality of Hemet?

31.50%
Helper
25

6.A.

Best Friend

12.39%
Helper

31.50%
Entertainer

2.29%
Community Survey
Hero

9.63%
Explorer

19.72%
Expert

0.92%
Creative

6.12%
Teacher

16.97%
Tech Scientist

0.46%
26 Which of the images below best represents the personality of Hemet? Brand Personas/Archetypes

6.A.

Community Survey
27 What visual symbol or landmark is iconic in Hemet?
Share up to three answers.

Ramona Bowl

20.2%
Diamond Valley Lake

11.2%
Hemet Theater

6.5%
Santa Fe Depot

6.2%

6.A.

Community Survey
28 What communications or messages do you think Hemet should send to the following audiences? What do you think people should know or learn about Hemet?
Residents of Hemet and San Jacinto
● “It’s taken a long time but we are finally rebuilding the community.”
● “Promote more community involvement by informing
the public of community events.”
● “A better Hemet starts with all of us. Let’s work
together to keep our streets clean, our neighborhoods
safe, and our community strong.”
Residents of Other Communities in Riverside County
● “Give the valley a look you'll be pleasantly surprised.” ● “Market the nature activities that are in this area”
● “Looks maybe deceiving and the openness that this
valley offers is what people crave in the larger cities.” Tourists from Southern California and Beyond
● “Diamond Valley, Ramona Bowl Events, and Casino. Also not far from the beautiful mountains of Idyllwild.”
● “Hemet offers a rich blend of history, culture, and
outdoor adventure, making it an inviting getaway for
those seeking authentic Inland Empire.”
● “It’s a great place to visit for trails, culture, science center.”
Business Owners and Investors
● “We are on the rise and worth investing in.”
● “Hemet offers affordability, available land, and a
supportive environment for locally owned businesses.”
● “We have over 150,000 population, in our valley. That is a large pool of potential employees, with another 20 to 30 thousand new homes looking to be built in the next 3 to 5 years. If you do the math, that should be an
investor's dream.”

6.A.

Community Survey
29 Which colors do you most associate with the personality and physical nature of Hemet?
Choose three answers.

6.A.

Demographics
30

6.A.

CommunitySurvey Do you currently live in Hemet?
31

6.A.

CommunitySurvey RESIDENTS ONLY
How long have you been a resident of Hemet?
32

6.A.

CommunitySurvey NON-RESIDENTS ONLY
In which community do you live?
34

6.A.

CommunitySurvey What is your gender?
36

6.A.

CommunitySurvey Which of the following includes your age? 37

6.A.

CommunitySurvey Which of the following best describes you? 38 Other:
● European
● White and Hispanic

6.A.

CommunitySurvey Which of the following ranges includes your total household income? 39

6.A.

Brand Barometer
40

6.A.

Answering TheQuestion:
“On a scale of 1-10, how likely are you to recommend living, visiting, or conducting business in Hemet to a friend or colleague?” The Math: Promoters (9-10), Passives (7-8), Detractors (1-6) Promoters - Detractors = Brand Advocacy Score (Net Promoter Score) Passives are not counted.
41

6.A.

Detractor
s
Brand Barometer
Passives Promoter
s
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Living in Hemet
42

6.A.

Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Living in Hemet
Living in
Hemet
Hemet
Totals
National
Average
National
Totals
1 16.79% Detractors 3.86% Detractors
2 9.49%

73.81%

1.81%

29.38%
3 11.86% 3.04%
4 11.31% 3.93%
5 14.60% 8.65%
6 9.76% 8.10%
7 11.50% Passives 13.30% Passives
8 8.30% 19.80% 19.47% 32.77%
9 2.28% Promoters 12.80% Promoters
10 4.11% 6.39% 25.04% 37.85%
43

6.A.

-67.42%
Overall Brand Advocacy Score
Living in Hemet
(% of Promoters minus % of Detractors)
44 Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Living in Hemet

6.A.

Detractor
s
Brand Barometer
Passives Promoter
s
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Visiting Hemet
45

6.A.

Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Visiting Hemet
Visiting
Hemet
Hemet
Totals
National
Average
National
Totals
1 20.16% Detractors 3.27% Detractors
2 9.58%

77.45%

2.03%

29.78%
3 14.42% 3.23%
4 9.85% 3.91%
5 15.05% 9.12%
6 8.39% 8.23%
7 8.39% Passives 12.13% Passives
8 7.03% 15.42% 16.71% 28.84%
9 2.92% Promoters 13.08% Promoters
10 4.20% 7.12% 28.30% 41.38%
46

6.A.

-70.33%
Overall Brand Advocacy Score
Visiting Hemet
(% of Promoters minus % of Detractors)
47 Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Visiting Hemet

6.A.

Detractor
s
Brand Barometer
Passives Promoter
s
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Conducting Business in Hemet
48

6.A.

Biz. in
Hemet
Hemet
Totals
National
Average
National
Totals
1 17.06% Detractors 4.04% Detractors
2 11.50%

78.75%

2.02%

35.69%
3 11.41% 3.47%
4 10.68% 4.28%
5 19.80% 12.08%
6 8.30% 9.80%
7 9.31% Passives 13.60% Passives
8 6.66% 15.97% 18.19% 31.79%
9 1.82% Promoters 11.43% Promoters
10 3.47% 5.29% 21.10% 32.53%
Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Conducting Business in Hemet
49

6.A.

-73.46%
Overall Brand Advocacy Score
Conducting Business in Hemet
(% of Promoters minus % of Detractors)
50 Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Conducting Business in Hemet

6.A.

Detractor
s
Brand Barometer
Passives Promoter
s
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Working in Hemet
51

6.A.

-72.27%
Overall Brand Advocacy Score
Working in Hemet
(% of Promoters minus % of Detractors)
52 Brand Barometer
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend…
Working in Hemet

6.A.

Brand Barometer On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 10 being “extremely likely,” how likely would you be to recommend Hemet to a friend or colleague… 53

6.A.

Consumer Awareness & Perception Study
54 317 Respondents

6.A.

Consumer Awareness and Perception Study
55 SURVEY TERMINATION
300 Total Respondents
● 100 from Los Angeles County
● 100 from Orange County
● 100 from San Diego County
Terminations included:
● 140 for living outside areas of interest
● 18 for being under 18
● 217 for not being familiar with Hemet

6.A.

Consumer Awareness and Perception Study
56 SURVEY ANALYSIS GROUPINGS
Markets
● Los Angeles County
● Orange County
● San Diego County
Age
● Under 45 years old
● 45 years old and older
Visitors (258 respondents)
● Visitors indicated that they have visited Hemet.

Gender
● Women
● Men

6.A.

Familiarity
57

6.A.

CAPStudy How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 58

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, TERMINATIONS INCLUDED
How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 59

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY MARKET
How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 60

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY AGE
How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 61

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY GENDER
How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 62

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY VISITATION
How familiar are you with the following cities in Riverside County, CA? 63

6.A.

Unaided Perceptions
64

6.A.

CAPStudy When you think of the following cities in Riverside County, what is the first thing that comes to mind to describe that community or distinguish it from the others? 65 Menifee
● Hot
● Far
● New, growing
Hemet
● Hot, desert
● Mountains
● Rural, country
San Jacinto
● Mountains
● Hot, desert
● Unfamiliar
Murrieta
● Hot Springs
● Hot
● Wine country
Moreno Valley
● Hot
● Run-down
● Lake Perris
Temecula
● Wine country
● Casinos
● Hot, dry

6.A.

CAPStudy Do you think these cities are improving, staying the same, or declining? 66

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY MARKET
Do you think these cities are improving, staying the same, or declining? 67

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY AGE
Do you think these cities are improving, staying the same, or declining? 68

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY GENDER
Do you think these cities are improving, staying the same, or declining? 69

6.A.

CAPStudy HEMET ONLY, BY VISITATION
Do you think these cities are improving, staying the same, or declining? 70

6.A.

CAPStudy In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Buy a home?
71

6.A.

CAPStudy In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Visit over a weekend?
76

6.A.

CAPStudy In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Start a business?
81

6.A.

CAPStudy In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Find a good job?
86

6.A.

CAPStudy In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Retire?
91

6.A.

CAPStudy

BY MARKET
In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Retire?
92

6.A.

CAPStudy
BY AGE
In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Retire?
93

6.A.

CAPStudy

BY VISITATION
In general, which of the following cities in Riverside County do you think are the best for someone to…
Retire?
95

6.A.

CAPStudy
96 Which of these cities do you most associate with scenic landscapes, easy access to well-preserved natural areas, and a variety of outdoor recreation options? Choose two answers.

Elsewhere in Riverside County:
● Riverside

6.A.

CAPStudy
101
Which of these cities do you most associate with a laid-back lifestyle away from the crowded and congested parts of Southern California? Choose two answers.

Elsewhere in Riverside County:
● Riverside

6.A.

CAPStudy
102

BY MARKET
Which of these cities do you most associate with a laid-back lifestyle away from the crowded and congested parts of Southern California? Choose two answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
103
BY AGE
Which of these cities do you most associate with a laid-back lifestyle away from the crowded and congested parts of Southern California? Choose two answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
104

BY GENDER
Which of these cities do you most associate with a laid-back lifestyle away from the crowded and congested parts of Southern California? Choose two answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
105

BY VISITATION
Which of these cities do you most associate with a laid-back lifestyle away from the crowded and congested parts of Southern California? Choose two answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
106
Which of these cities do you most associate with a diverse population that supports multicultural restaurants, businesses, and social activities? Choose two answers.

Elsewhere in Riverside County:
● Riverside
● Lake Elsinore

6.A.

CAPStudy
111
Which of these cities is home to the Western Science Center, which displays Ice Age fossils of mastodons, mammoths, and ground sloths unearthed during the development of a nearby artificial lake?

6.A.

CAPStudy
112

BY MARKET
Which of these cities is home to the Western Science Center, which displays Ice Age fossils of mastodons, mammoths, and ground sloths unearthed during the development of a nearby artificial lake?

6.A.

CAPStudy
113
BY AGE
Which of these cities is home to the Western Science Center, which displays Ice Age fossils of mastodons, mammoths, and ground sloths unearthed during the development of a nearby artificial lake?

6.A.

CAPStudy
114

BY GENDER
Which of these cities is home to the Western Science Center, which displays Ice Age fossils of mastodons, mammoths, and ground sloths unearthed during the development of a nearby artificial lake?

6.A.

CAPStudy
116
Which of these cities has put on annual performances of “Ramona”—California’s official outdoor play—at the Ramona Bowl Amphitheater for over a century (since 1923)?

6.A.

CAPStudy
117

BY MARKET
Which of these cities has put on annual performances of “Ramona”—California’s official outdoor play—at the Ramona Bowl Amphitheater for over a century (since 1923)?

6.A.

CAPStudy
119

BY GENDER
Which of these cities has put on annual performances of “Ramona”—California’s official outdoor play—at the Ramona Bowl Amphitheater for over a century (since 1923)?

6.A.

Perceptions
121

6.A.

CAPStudy
122
Which phrase best describes Hemet, California?
Choose three answers.

Other:
● Nothing good
● Low-income

6.A.

CAPStudy
123

BY MARKET
Which phrase best describes Hemet, California?
Choose three answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
124
BY AGE
Which phrase best describes Hemet, California?
Choose three answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
127
Based on your perception of Hemet, in your opinion, please rate its following attributes on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is “Poor” and 5 is “Excellent.”

6.A.

CAPStudy
128

BY MARKET, TOP RANKED
Based on your perception of Hemet, in your opinion, please rate its following attributes on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is “Poor” and 5 is “Excellent.”

6.A.

CAPStudy
132
Have you ever visited Hemet?

6.A.

CAPStudy NON-VISITORS, 68 RESPONSES
Why have you not visited Hemet?
136
Other:
● Don’t travel

6.A.

Visitors
137

6.A.

CAPStudy VISITORS, 249 RESPONSES
What was the primary purpose or main reason you visited Hemet on your most recent visit? 138
Other:
● Out for a drive
Pass Through to:
● Palm Springs
● Temecula
● Riverside
● San Diego

6.A.

CAPStudy BY AGE
What was the primary purpose or main reason you visited Hemet on your most recent visit? 140

6.A.

CAPStudy VISITORS, 249 RESPONSES
Lasting Impressions
What aspect of Hemet leaves the most positive impression on visitors and newcomers?
● “Cost of housing in relation to San Diego County.”
● “Affordable cost of living compared to big California cities.”
● “Scenic mountain views and friendly small town feel.” ● “For those who desire it, it's very secluded compared to OC and LA County.”
● “The variety of housing and shopping opportunities,
also the rural feel of the surrounding area.”
● “It can be calm and secluded, dry weather, affordable for retirement.”
● “How much the citizens love their town, and how they
truly feel like a solid, tight-knit community watching
out for each other.”
● “The nature and wide open space.”
What aspect of Hemet leaves the most negative impression on visitors and newcomers?
● “Extremely hot and a lot of low-income crime areas.”
● “Slow, boring, and not much to do.”
● “It is pretty far away from more populated areas of Los Angeles and Orange County. The '909' gets a bad rap.”
● “The homeless population, and the town is dirty from
litter.”
● “There are some older parts that have not been kept
up, and it looks like there could be some possibility of crime.”
● “The lack of tourist safety and security in downtown
Hemet.”
● “If you're not into nature, it might not be a place for you.”
● “More traffic than I thought for the area.”

LASTING IMPRESSIONS
142

6.A.

All Respondents
143

6.A.

CAPStudy
144
What is most important to the future success of Hemet?
Choose two answers.

6.A.

CAPStudy
145

BY MARKET
What is most important to the future success of Hemet?
Choose two answers.

6.A.

External Qualitative Data
Influencer Perception Study
149

6.A.

EXTERNAL PERCEPTIONS InfluencerPerception Study
Missing
Awareness
Good stories
City noise/traffic
Specialized healthcare
Identity
Housing options
Challenges
Crime/drugs reputation
Homelessness
Not visually welcoming
Keeping city clean
No major highway
Assets
Diamond Valley Lake
Local restaurant scene
Warehouses
Iconic landmarks (theatre)
Hemet Bowl
Outdoor recreation
Retail
Affordability
Opportunities
Economic summit
Redevelopment
Indoor sports facilities
Pickleball in vacant
stores/malls
Recreational entertainment 150

6.A.

STRATEGY
Insights
151

6.A.

152
The job of the brand is to tell your most competitive story.

The job of the strategy is to determine what that story should be about.

Insights

6.A.

153
We heard lots of great things. INSIGHTS
Appreciation for natural
beauty in Hemet
“When I think of
Hemet, I also think of
the Valley—its views
and its trees.”
“
“There’s a smalltown aspect here
that I love.”
“
“New city leadership is
making a difference.

It is recognized and
appreciated.”
“
A less crowded and more
connected community
A sense of positive
momentum

6.A.

154
We heard concerns. INSIGHTS
“A lot of people are
embarrassed to say
they’re from
Hemet.”
“
“We can’t even take
our kids to the
playground.”
“
“Need to see a
revitalized downtown.”
“
Community Pride and
Reputational Issues
Need to address
homelessness and
provide a feeling of
safety
Revitalization and
Beautification needed

6.A.

155
What’s distinct? INSIGHTS
“There is a lot of
beautiful nature in
Hemet.”
“ “
“I love it here because I
see the potential and I
want to be a part of
making it better.”
“When you come
into Hemet, your
shoulders relax
and you’re home.”
“
A more laid back
lifestyle Exceptional natural beauty
and outdoor access
Accessible opportunity
and a chance to make an
impact

6.A.

STRATEGY
DNA Platform
156

6.A.

157
DNA Platform Framework DNA STATEMENT
Benefit: Why it should matter to the consumer
Frame of Reference: Geographic context of Hemet
Point-of-Difference: What makes Hemet special

Target Audience: To whom Hemet has the most appeal

6.A.

158
where your energy and opportunity can be amplified by a community with rising momentum.

Hemet, home to the historic Ramona Bowl, with sweeping views of the San Jacinto Mountains,
is an accessible, natural haven from the coastal crowds and pretense, For those looking to build their California dream
Hemet DNA Platform Statement DNA STATEMENT

6.A.

Strategy Rationale
● “California dream” extends the Hemet invitation to a variety of audiences whether they are young families, retirees, aspiring business owners, or investors while also signaling to our current residents and businesses that this is the place to craft their future. ● The inclusion of the active word “build” indicates that there is great opportunity to be had in Hemet if you actively seek it.
● Signals that authentic California living can be found in Hemet making it the ideal place to plant roots and scale ambitions over time.
159

DNA STATEMENT

For those looking to build their California dream

6.A.

Strategy Rationale
160

DNA STATEMENT
● The Ramona Bowl is a singular cultural landmark and memory-making venue that instantly signals Hemet’s heritage and outdoor character. It anchors the important California history that exists here as part of the story. ● Noting the proximity to the San Jacinto range provides a geographic locator and a clear message that this is a place where natural assets play a vital role in the character of the place and the way of life offered.

Hemet, home to the historic Ramona Bowl, with sweeping views of the San Jacinto Mountains,

6.A.

Strategy Rationale
161

DNA STATEMENT
● Compared to crowded, costly, and heavily curated coastal communities, Hemet’s lower density and outdoor access offer a more relaxed, grounded lifestyle that is less common in the region.
● “Accessible” signals a more affordable option but also highlights the multiple Southern California assets that are within reach from Hemet (beaches, mountains, cities). ● “Haven” here represents the relative seclusion and small town attitude of Hemet that is a true respite from the bustle and disconnection of neighboring cities in the region.

is an accessible, natural haven from the coastal crowds and pretense,

6.A.

Strategy Rationale
162

DNA STATEMENT
● Framing Hemet as a place where affordability, cultural assets, and outdoor access converge makes a persuasive promise that newcomers don’t just arrive, they gain room to build, test ideas, and grow within a supportive community.
● Rising momentum positions Hemet as a place of action and opportunity. The ongoing push to refresh and renew a bright future path offers an open door to the ability to make a difference and join the ride.
where your energy and opportunity can be amplified by a community with rising momentum.

6.A.

163
where your energy and opportunity can be amplified by a community with rising momentum.

Hemet, home to the historic Ramona Bowl, with sweeping views of the San Jacinto Mountains,
is an accessible, natural haven from the coastal crowds and pretense, For those looking to build their California dream
Hemet DNA Platform Statement DNA STATEMENT

6.A.

Thank You, Hemet!
164

6.A.

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Mar 10 2026
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Monique Alaniz-Flejter, Community Development Director; ☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☒ Public Hearing TITLE:

Public Hearing to Consider Revised Simpson Warehouse Project: General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006), and Tentative Parcel Map 38800 (MAP 23-008), to Allow Construction of One (1) Industrial Building Totaling 884,760 Square Feet, Tentative Parcel Map, and Associated Site Improvements. This is a Re-Noticed Hearing.

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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

OPTION #1 - Approve the Project

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023120462) for the Newland Simpson Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including adoption of the Findings of Fact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Findings will be provided at the meeting with feedback from the Council on the Revised Project; and

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, approving the following entitlements for the Newland Simpson Project. Findings will be provided at the meeting with feedback from the Council on the Revised Project.

General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-003): Changing the land use designation from Mixed Use to Business Park for consistency (Parcel 1 Only).

Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-006): Allowing the construction of a high-cube warehouse building totaling approximately 884,760 square feet and associated improvements.

7.A.

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

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

OPTION #2 – Deny the Project
Adopt a Resolution to deny certification of the FEIR (SCH No. 2023120462) and denial of GPA 22 003, CUP 22 006, TPM 38800, VAR 24 003 and the requested Building Height Exception (collectively, the “Project Approvals”) as presented to the City Council on May 13, 2025 with additional input provided by the Council on the Revised Project.

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

BACKGROUND:

On April 8, 2025, the Hemet City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the Newland Simpson Road Project. The Planning Commission previously recommended denial of the Project on the basis of its inconsistency with the City’s General Plan and the existence of multiple significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

The Project was processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and circulated for public review, and a Final EIR was subsequently compiled, including responses to comments and proposed mitigation measures.

Upon review, the EIR found that the Project would cause four significant and unavoidable environmental impacts:
 Loss of Prime Farmland (Agriculture and Forestry Resources)  Exceedance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions thresholds
 Significant Noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors  Excessive Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) not meeting CEQA thresholds Despite proposed mitigation, these impacts could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The Final EIR complies with CEQA procedural requirements. However, CEQA Guidelines §15093 requires that before approving a project with unmitigated environmental impacts, a public agency must adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” explaining why the benefits of a project outweigh the environmental harm.

At the April 8, 2025, meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution declining to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed Project. This direction was based on the following findings:

7.A.

 The identified adverse environmental impacts are substantial;  No feasible mitigation exists for four critical impact areas;  The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan land use vision;  Less impactful alternatives were available, including the No Project alternative;  The Applicant rejected reduced-scale alternatives that could have potentially lessened environmental effects.

CEQA discourages approval of projects with significant, unmitigable impacts unless the decisionmaking body finds that overriding benefits justify those impacts. In this case, the City Council found that the claimed economic, fiscal, and employment benefits were insufficient to outweigh the Project's adverse effects.

At the May 13, 2025, meeting, the City Council considered a Resolution to deny certification of the FEIR (SCH No. 2023120462) and to deny approval of GPA 22-003, CUP 22-006, TPM 38800, VAR 24-003 and the requested Building-Height Exception (collectively, the “Project Approvals”).

However, an alternative option was presented to allow the applicant the opportunity to submit an amended version of the Project. At that meeting, the Council voted to continue the item and directed the City Clerk to schedule a duly noticed public hearing at the next available City Council meeting to consider the amended Project described in the Applicant’s May 6, 2025, letter. The amended plan proposes a reduced development consisting of a single 884,760 sq. ft. warehouse, eliminating Building 2 and the 8.9-acre trailer lot.

On July 14, 2025 the City held noticed public hearing to consider this alternative the Project ("Amended Project"). At that meeting, the City Council voted to deny the Project Approval.

On January 8, 2026, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the City of Hemet, HSL Hemet Land LLC, and Hemet 223, LLC. The agreement resolves disputed claims arising from the City Council’s July 14, 2025, denial of the Newland Simpson Road Project. HSL is the fee owner of the subject property and Hemet 223 is in the process of purchasing the Property from HSL. As a result of the agreement, the project has been re-noticed for a De Novo public hearing 10-days in advance by advertising in the Press Enterprise and mailing to property owners and interested parties on February 27, 2026 prior to the holding of the public hearing at which the project would be re-considered by the City Council on March 10, 2026.

DISCUSSION:

Amended Project Description
The revised Project includes development of a 74.88-acre Project site with an 884,760 square-foot high-cube warehouse building, including 9,000 square feet of office space, 938 Auto Parking Stalls, on-site Landscaping, 202 Truck Trailer Parking Stalls, and 146 dock doors. The Revised Project would include approximately 170,945 SF of on-site landscape area.

The amended Project eliminates the previously proposed 309,338 sq ft Building 2 and 8.9 acre trailer storage lot and limits development of the warehouse building improvements to Parcel 1 on 44.23 net acres (FAR 47%). The project also eliminates the previously proposed parking variance. There is no on-site development proposed for Parcels 2 and 3 (totaling ≈ 26.11 net acres) with this application.

Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1046(3), the applicant is requesting approval of a ten percent increase in the maximum building height (55’-0”) for structures that are setback a minimum of

7.A.

100 feet from a residential use or zone, not including signs. The proposed building height of the warehouse building ranges from 56'-0" to 60’-0” to the top of the parapet.

The Project also includes off-site infrastructure improvements along Simpson Road and Warren Road, including roadway widening, installation of sidewalks, parkway landscaping, and installation of a new sewer line as previously proposed. Additionally, the Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to subdivide APN 465-140-043 and 465-140-042, resulting in a total of three parcels for the Project site. Parcel 1 includes a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Designation of Mixed Use to Business Park for consistency with the current Zoning Designation of Business Park on the property. Parcels 2 and 3 are not included with the General Plan Amendment and are proposed to remain as Mixed Use.

Reduced Project Site Plan- Consistency with Newland Simpson Road Project EIR A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consistency memorandum addressing the site plan changes for the Project was prepared on June 27, 2025 (Exhibit D). The analysis concludes that the reduction in proposed square footage and acreage in the site plan would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or

7.A.

any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The impact reductions are as provided below:
 The Revised Project would result in 655 net fewer daily trips, 38 net fewer AM peak hour trips and 51 net fewer PM peak hour trips. In terms of PCE, the Revised Project would result in 835 net fewer daily PCE trips, 49 net fewer AM peak hour PCE trips and 62 net fewer PM peak hour PCE trips (Exhibit E).
 As shown in the attached memo (Exhibit F), Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Tables for the Comparative Analysis of the Revised Newland Simpson Road Project, regional air pollutant emissions from construction would be reduced by approximately 26 to 32 percent, dependent on the specific pollutant. Regional air pollutant emissions from operations would be reduced by approximately 24 to 27 percent, dependent on the specific pollutant. Localized construction emissions would be decreased by approximately 33 percent and localized operational emissions would be decreased by approximately 27 to 38 percent in comparison to the Previous Project. In addition, while GHG emissions resulting from the Revised Project would remain above SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, they would be reduced by approximately 26 percent compared to the Previous Project.
 The reduction in building square footage as part of the Revised Project would result in decreased impacts related to aesthetics, hazards & hazardous materials, land use & planning, on-site construction & operational noise, vibration, population & housing, public services, utilities & service systems, and wildfire. Specifically related to aesthetics, since only Building 1 would be developed as part of the Revised Project, setbacks from the proposed building and Warren Avenue would increase. Therefore, views of the Domenigoni Mountains would be more expansive than those that would occur with implementation of the Previous Project.

Furthermore, the reduction in development footprint would result in fewer ground-disturbing activities and a decrease in impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources (Exhibit D).

New Fiscal Impact & Economic Benefit Analysis Prepared June 2025 A revised Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis has since been provided by the applicant.

The analysis is dated June 30, 2025, and has been prepared by DPFG, a Development Planning and Financing Group. The purpose of the fiscal impact analysis is to determine the estimated fiscal impacts of the Project to the City's General Fund. Additionally, the Economic Benefit Analysis estimates the number of annual jobs created and annual labor income generated during construction on an on-going basis after construction is complete.

The three components of economic impact are further described below:

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

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

7.A.

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

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

Average Annual Jobs Created During Construction: Over an average annual basis, over the 18- month construction period, it is estimated that the Project will generate:
902 Total Jobs
 641 Direct Jobs
 101 Indirect Jobs
 160 Induced Jobs
$54.26 Million in Annual Labor Income
 $40.48 Million in Direct Labor Income
 $6.11 Million in Indirect Labor Income
 $7.67 Million in Induced Labor Income
Ongoing Annual Jobs After Construction: Upon completion, on an Annual ongoing basis, it is estimated that the Project will generate:
1,253 Total Jobs
 806 Direct Jobs
 244 Indirect Jobs
 203 Induced Jobs
$72.55 Million in Annual Labor Income
 $50.34 Million in Direct Labor Income
 $12.47 Million in Indirect Labor Income.
 $9.74 Million in Induced Labor Income.

The report indicates that the economic benefit to the City from the project includes $81.39 million of Cumulative Labor Income during the first 18-months of construction. Additionally, the report concludes that on a permanent ongoing annual basis, it is estimated that the Project will result in $362.76 million of Cumulative Labor Income for the first five years of project occupancy and $ .73 billion in Cumulative Labor Income for the first 10-year period.

7.A.

Community Benefits to be provided beyond the limits of the project:
 Developer to maintain access to APN 465-140-032 with a dedicated 20’ access road through the project, at the project’s sole cost.
 Developer to provide full-width street improvements on Simpson Avenue, in lieu of standard half-width improvements, at the project’s sole cost, applicable to the City’s existing public right of way.
 Developer to fund or construct 1,000 linear feet of the regional running trail along the Salt Creek Trail at the project’s frontage.
 Developer to fund or construct a new “Welcome to the City of Hemet” monument sign that is to be no smaller in size than 3’ tall x 5’ wide. Developer to abide by all City signage guidelines; and either payment or construction start of the signage shall be made prior to occupancy.  Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure 1,000 linear feet east of the project along Simpson Road, starting at the property’s easternmost property line. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.
 Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure 1,000 linear feet north of the project along Warren Road, starting at the property’s northernmost property line. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.
 Developer to repair asphalt infrastructure at Warren Road and Domenigoni intersection between the Salt Creek Bridge crossing and Domenigoni Parkway northern boundary. This will include a Grind & Overlay repair as a minimum specification.  Project must require any tenant, existing or future, to abide by City of Hemet truck routes. This includes the provision that the City of Hemet can change the truck routes throughout the city; and the tenant will direct future truck traffic to those revised routes.  Developer to contribute $50,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s study of the Domenigoni Parkway median project.
 Developer to contribute $75,000 to the City of Hemet relating to the City’s Traffic Signal Synchronization project for a radius of two miles of signals to the project boundaries.  Developer to donate or construct $50,000 of artwork that celebrates the City of Hemet’s culture and history as outlined in section 10 of the General Plan. Developer to coordinate with the City Planner to ensure that either payment or commissioning of the artwork shall be made prior to occupancy.
 Developer to schedule and host a job fair to be held within the city boundaries to support the hiring of Hemet residents. This job fair shall be coordinated with the City Economic Development Manager and requires at least four weeks' notice prior to the event.  Developer to enhance the building’s corner office characteristics in order to tie in architectural elements of the Western Science Center at the project’s sole cost.

Additionally, the Draft Conditions of Approval Agreed Upon by the Applicant as Presented to the Council on April 8, 2025 include two (2) conditions to add screen trees along the western edge of Parcel 1 and revise architectural elevations on the north and south elevations to be consistent with the renderings presented with the Revised Project if approved (Exhibit M).

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

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

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

7.A.

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

An economic analysis dated June 30, 2025, has been prepared by DPFG for the project. The report indicates that the economic benefit to the City from the project includes $362.76 million for the first five years of project occupancy and $.73 billion for the first 10-year period.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative Council Action
Findings of Facts & Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) Because the Draft EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated below the level of significance, Findings of Fact (Findings) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations are required. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section § 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
The City Council may adopt the "Revised" Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project as follows, and associated conditions of approval as provided in Exhibit C.

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

7.A.

1. The Economic Benefit Analysis estimates that the Project would create 1,253 total long-term labor and office jobs which would generate $72.55 million in labor income on an annual basis. In addition, the Project would generate 902 total jobs during construction, generating $54.26 million in labor income during the construction period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copies of the Draft EIR and Final EIR have been made available for review online at https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents.

7.A.

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

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

The Hemet General Plan serves as the City’s long-range policy guide for land use, development, and infrastructure planning. General Plan amendments are considered legislative actions and are subject to specific findings under California Government Code Section 65354. In accordance with state law, the Planning Commission must provide a written recommendation to the City Council, which serves as the final decision-making body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CUP has been reviewed by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC)—which includes representatives from Public Works, Engineering, Building, Police, Fire, and Planning and

7.A.

recommended with conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and public infrastructure.

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

1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located.

2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

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

4. That the type, intensity, sensitivity, and operating characteristics of the proposed use, and the manner in which they will be located on the site, are compatible with existing land uses, the character of established neighborhoods, or planned development in the vicinity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

7.A.

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

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

8. The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

Building Height Exception
The applicant is requesting a building height exception pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-1046(c)(3) to allow warehouse buildings that exceed the standard maximum building height permitted in the Business Park (B-P) zone.

Under current zoning standards, the maximum allowable building height is 55 feet. The proposed warehouse buildings (Building 1) would have maximum parapet heights ranging from 56 to 60 feet, representing an increase of up to 10 percent above the allowable height limit.

Pursuant to HMC Section 90-1046(c)(3), the reviewing authority may authorize a 10 percent increase in maximum building height for structures that are set back a minimum of 100 feet from any residential use or residentially zoned property, excluding signs. The proposed buildings meet this setback requirement.

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

ATTACHMENT(S):

Exhibit A Revised Project Description
Exhibit B Revised Project CEQA Findings of Facts & Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C Revised Project Fiscal and Economic Benefits Analysis Exhibit D Revised Project CEQA Consistency Memo
Exhibit E Revised Project Trip Generation Memo
Exhibit F Revised Project AQ-GHG Reduction Memo
Exhibit G Revised Architectural Plans
Exhibit H Revised Tentative Parcel Map
Exhibit I Revised Preliminary Grading Plan
Exhibit J Revised Proposed General Plan Map
Exhibit K CEQA Documents Newland Simpson Project
Exhibit L FEIR & Mitigation Monitoring Program

7.A.

Exhibit M Draft Conditions of Approval Revised
Attachment No. 1 Aerial Map
Attachment No. 2 Existing Zoning Map
Attachment No. 3. Existing General Plan Map MU-4 Area
Attachment No. 4. Existing General Plan Map
Attachment No. 5 Regional Truck Route Map
PHN Proof of Publication

7.A.

Project Summary
1 PROJECT SETTING

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The revised proposed project—a new 884,760 sq ft warehouse building, related improvements and a Tentative Parcel Map that will subdivide the 74.88 gross acre parcel into three parcels, Parcel 1 – 44.23 acres, Parcel 2 – 18.10 acres, and Parcel 3 - 8.10 acres, and additional roadway dedications—is located in the Western portion of the City of Hemet at the intersection of Warren Road and Simpson Road. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 79 located approximately 3.9 miles west from Domenigoni Parkway, and Highway 74 North about 3.2 miles North from Warren Road. The existing site and surrounding area is shown in Figure 1, Aerial Project Location.

The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 465-140-043 and 465-140-042.

1.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The project site consists of (2) two parcels totaling approximately 74.88 acres. The lot is vacant with no existing structures or improvements on site. The project site is currently utilized for agriculture with existing irrigation infrastructure as shown in Figure 2, Project Vicinity.

1.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE The project site is zoned as Business Park and is not within a specific plan. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (B-P) is included with the project. This amendment is intended to align the General Plan land use designation with the site’s existing zoning designation of Business Park, therefore establishing consistency between the zoning designation and General Plan designations.

1.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The surrounding land uses are described in Table 1 along with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations.

7.A.

Project Summary
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The revised proposed project will consist of a Conditional Use Permit permitting the construction of an 884,760 sq ft warehouse building, related site improvements, a Tentative Parcel Map, a General Plan Amendment, and a Building Height Exemption. The conceptual site plan is provided as Figure

3. 2.2 PROJECT FEATURES
Development & Operational Summary
The proposed 884,760 sq ft warehouse building, including 9,000 sq ft of office space, is proposed on Parcel 1. Parcels 2 and 3 do not propose development at this time.

Existing Land Use City General Plan
Designation City Zoning Designation
North North of Simpson Road, vacant
land consistent with agricultural use Mixed Uses (Varies) Business Park (BP-R) West
West of the project site;
agricultural land and a small model
plan airpark
Low Density
Residential (LDR),
Mixed Use
Specific Plan (SP-R), Business
Park (B-P)
South
South of Olive Ave; undeveloped
land followed by low-density
residential separated from the
project site by Domenigoni Pkwy.

Open Space, Rural
Residential (RR) Open Space General (OS-G)
East
Vacant Land with agricultural uses
followed by low density residential
lots
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Open Space General (OSG), Single Family Residential
(R-1.7.2)

7.A.

Project Summary
Table 2: Project Site Data
Building
Square
Footage
875,760 warehouse
9,000 office
Auto Parking
Stalls 938
Trailer
Parking Stalls 202
Dock Doors
146
Detention
Basin SF N/A
The project will be accessible via three new points of entry from Simpson Road via three driveways:
two driveways at 40 ft in width and one driveway at 20 ft in width. All three driveways are designated to facilitate inbound and outbound traffic, with the 20 ft driveway restricted for passenger vehicle access only.

The project will meet the City of Hemet’s minimum landscape requirements for the BP zone. Sufficient landscape buffers will be provided along Simpson Road.

As shown below in Table 2, the proposed project complies with all the City of Hemet’s Municipal Code standards for the B-P Zone:

Table 2: Business Park – Development Standards
Development Standard Required Provided
Parking Warehouse: 1/1000 SF
Manufacturing: 1/500 SF
Office: 1/250 SF
Or 912 spaces
Building 1: 938 spaces
Coverage 65% Building 1: 46.7%
FAR 0.60 Building 1: 0.47

7.A.

Project Summary
Maximum Structure Height 55 ft Building 1: 60 ft
Front Setback 20 ft Building 1: 170 ft
Rear Yard Setback, Landscaped 0 ft Building 1: 103 ft
Side Yard Setback, Landscaped Interior side – 0’ Street side and corner – 10’
Building 1: 185 ft
Typical operational characteristics seen in speculative buildings of these sizes include employees traveling to and from the site, delivery of materials and supplies to the site, truck loading and unloading, and distribution. The project is assumed to operate 24/7. The revised proposed project has an assigned tenant, Rialto Pacific, LLC, a regional fulfillment company that handles logistics, fulfillment, and delivery services, serving major retailers like Walmart, Target, and Costco.

2.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, PERMITS, AND STUDIES

The following discretionary approval, permits, and studies are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed project:

City of Hemet
• General Plan Amendment
• Conditional Use Permit
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Building Height Exemption
• California Environmental Quality Act Compliance, including technical studies

7.A.

Figure 1
– Aerial Project Location

7.A.

Project Summary
Figure 2 – Project Vicinity

7.A.

Figure 3
– Conceptual Site Plan

7.A.

City of Hemet 1
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

FOR THE NEWLAND SIMPSON ROAD PROJECT EIR

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023120462
Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002’s mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See PRC, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).):
• The first possible finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) • The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding” and that “[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) • The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds “legal” considerations as another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565).

Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.)
Further, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency should not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 2
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Notably, Section 21002 requires an agency to “substantially lessen or avoid” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 (“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 (“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the Project unfeasible”).

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576).

The City of Hemet has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following levels of environmental impacts associated with the Project are:
(1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 3
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION I

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated May 17, 2024, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the public review period of May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024, written responses to those comments and changes to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR Errata making minor corrections and revisions to the Final EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Hemet conducted an extensive environmental review of the Newland Simpson Road Project:
• Under CEQA, a Lead Agency may proceed directly with preparation of the EIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that an EIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[d]). The City of Hemet has made such a determination for this Project and has not prepared an Initial Study. The City of Hemet concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from December 18, 2023, through January 19, 2024. The NOP was posted at the Riverside County Clerk’s Office on December 15, 2023.
• Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Hemet to participate. The scoping meeting for the EIR was held on January 3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. at the Hemet Public Library Conference Room located at 300 E Florida Avenue in Hemet. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on December 18, 2023. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of Hemet, which was made available for a 45-day public review period (May 17, 2024, through July 1, 2024). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was sent to all persons, agencies and organizations on the interested persons list, posted onsite, and posted at the Riverside County Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse (SCH) at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on May 17, 2024. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Hemet, Community Development Department, located at 445 E Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download via the following City website location:
https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents
• The Final EIR contains comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency and public review period prior to certification of the Final EIR. • After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Hemet hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment. However, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible and the City has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be acceptable under Section 15093. • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The City of Hemet finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties.
• The City of Hemet finds that the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 4
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
• The City of Hemet hereby certifies the Final EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project files; b) copy of the Final EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to the Project applicant who is responsible for providing copy of same to all CEQA "responsible" agencies.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 5
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION II

RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC AREAS WITH NO IMPACT Based upon the EIR prepared for the Project, the City determined that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental topic areas and that no further, detailed analysis of these topics was required in the EIR:
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
The evidence in support of the finding that the Project will not have a significant impact on these environmental topic areas are set forth in the Draft EIR which is incorporated by reference.

Based upon the EIR prepared for the Project, the City determined that the Project would have no impact on the following environmental topic areas:

A. Agriculture and Forestry
Impact Finding AG-3: The Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section § 12220(G)), Timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section § 4526), or Timberland zoned Timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section § 51104(G)) (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: There is no forest land or forest resources on or in proximity to the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is designated for Mixed-Use (MU) by the General Plan and has a zoning designation of Business Park (B-P) and is not designated or zoned for forest or timberland or used for foresting. As such, development of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section § 51104(g)) and no impact would occur.

Impact Finding AG-4: The Project would not result in the loss of Forest land or conversion of Forest land to non-forest use (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located in an urbanizing area of the City. There is no forest land in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not cause loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur to forest land.

B. Biological Resources
Impact Finding BIO-2: The Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-18).

Facts in Support of Findings: The General Biological Assessment describes that the Project site does not contain any drainage, riparian, or riverine features (Appendix E to the Draft EIR). The Project site is not located within the federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat for Coastal California gnatcatcher within the Domenigoni Mountains is located approximately 0.25 miles south of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 6
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Impact Finding BIO-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-19).

Facts in Support of Findings: The General Biological Assessment describes that the Project site does not include any wetlands or vernal pools. There are no California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Army Core of Engineers (USACE), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters within the Project site boundaries. Therefore, the Project would not impact federally protected wetlands.

Impact Finding BIO-5: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-19).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as trees. Any Project activities that have the potential to impact onsite trees are required to make an application to the board of park commissioners to comply with Chapter 66, Article IV of the Municipal Code. No trees are located on the Project site. Therefore, development of the Project site would not conflict with this ordinance.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur.

C. Cultural Resources
Impact Finding CUL-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section § 15064.5. (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-6).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently utilized for agricultural purposes with associated farming infrastructure and does not have any structures onsite that could be considered a historical resource. Offsite improvement areas are developed with roadways. The Project site is adjacent to undeveloped, vacant land and agricultural uses. As discussed in the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix F to the Draft EIR), there are no historic structures within or adjacent to the Project site. As such, there are no existing historical resources within the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project, and impacts related to historic resources would not occur from implementation of the Project.

D. Geology and Soils
Impact Finding GEO-1i: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not within an Alquist Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are no known active faults within 500 feet of the site. The nearest active fault zones are the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately five miles northeast of the Project site and the Elsinore Fault Zone, located approximately thirteen miles southwest of the Project site (California Department of Conservation, 2021). Since the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, impacts related to the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault would not occur on the Project site.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 7
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Impact Finding GEO-5: The Project would not result in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-12).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project includes the construction of an onsite sewer system which would connect to a new offsite sewer main in Simpson Road, which would be constructed as part of the proposed Project. The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, no impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.

E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Finding HAZ-4: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section § 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment. (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-16).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix K to the Draft EIR) concluded that there are no hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the Project site. However, as shown on Table 5.9-1, the Phase I ESA determined that there are two sites within 1 mile of the Project site that are listed on hazardous materials databases. However, neither of these sites are considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) for the Project site. Therefore, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section § 65962.5 and no impact would occur.

F. Land Use and Planning
Impact Finding LU-1: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Draft EIR at p. 5.11-18).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would develop two industrial warehouse buildings on a site that is currently surrounded by predominantly vacant land and agricultural uses.

The Project site is utilized primarily for agricultural purposes. Entitlements for the Project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (BP) (see Figure 2.1, Land Use Plan, Hemet General Plan). However, the Project would be consistent with the surrounding uses. The surrounding area is currently vacant but areas to the north and west are zoned for business park and mixed uses. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community, and would result in no impact.

G. Population and Housing
Impact Finding POP-2: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-7).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site currently does not contain any housing and is utilized for farming activities, with no structures or improvements on site, with the exception of the roadway improvements of Warren Road and Simpson Road. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any existing people or housing units that would require construction of replacement housing, and no impacts would occur.

H. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact Finding UT-7: The Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-16).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 8
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings: All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with all solid waste statute and regulations; and impacts would not occur.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 9
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION III

RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section § 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “less than significant” where no mitigation is required.

These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Draft EIR in this Section II. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures:

A. Aesthetics
Impact Finding AES-1: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-7).

Facts in Support of Findings. The Project would develop two industrial warehouse buildings that would be approximately 60 feet tall and would include a landscape setback of approximately 20 feet along the northern border of the site along Simpson Road, building setbacks of approximately 185 feet from the east and west property lines, a landscape setback of approximately 20 feet along the western property line, and a landscape setback of approximately 5 feet along the southern property line so as not to encroach into the existing public long-distance views.

The proposed Project has a minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet along Simpson Road and 20 feet from Warren Road, building setbacks of approximately 185-feet from the east and west property lines, and a landscape setback of approximately 10-feet along the southern property line. The building setbacks would ensure that public views along the nearby roads would not be impacted, and landscaping would ensure that views of the site would be broken up and avoid monotonous views of the large walls of the buildings. In addition, the Project would also install a 12-foot-wide sidewalk on all Project frontages on Warren Road and Simpson Road which would further setback the buildings from the road. The proposed Project’s six-foot concrete wall along the western property line would be perpendicular to any public views facing south on Simpson Road and would therefore not interfere with any long-range views. The building height, massing, setbacks, new sidewalks and layered landscaping along Simpson Road and Warren would ensure that public views of the Domenigoni Mountains located 0.75 miles south of the site remain visible to vehicles and pedestrians traveling along Warren Road and Simpson Road, as shown in Figure 5.1-1 of the Draft EIR. The buildings would be constructed with a maximum building height allowed of 60 feet based on the Project's provision of a setback at least 100 feet from the residential uses to the southeast and would continue to provide long range views of the surrounding foothills. Thus, long range views of the Domenigoni and Lakeview Mountains would continue to be available from public vantage points on surrounding streets. Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact on any scenic vistas in the area.

Impact Finding AES-2: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-8).

Facts in Support of Findings. The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highway is State Route 74, located

2.5 miles north of the Project site. The closest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 74 located at the west boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest, approximately 9.8 miles northeast from the Project site. The Project site is not visible from State Route 74 at any point.

Both Warren Road and Simpson Road are designated as Scenic Highways by the City of Hemet.

The Project will comply with the landscaping, easement, and the 25-foot right of way setback

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 10
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
regulations set by the Scenic Highway Setback Manual Design Criteria. Furthermore, there are no existing trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the Project site that would be removed or substantially damaged as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding AES-3: The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-8).

Facts in Support of Findings. The Project site is located in an “urbanized area,” as defined by Public Resources Code Section § 21071. The site has a City of Hemet General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU) and zoning designation of Business Park (B-P). The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Mixed Use (MU) to Business Park (BP), which would be consistent with the Project site's existing zoning designation of B-P. The BP zoning designation provides for single and multi-tenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses. As shown on Tables 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with both the zoning code development standards and the City General Plan regulations regarding scenic quality. Therefore, while the Project would change the visual character of the site, it would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and its surroundings and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding AES-4: The Project would not create new sources of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-11).

Facts in Support of Findings. The are no existing sources of light or glare within the Project site as it is currently utilized for agricultural purposes.

Construction
Due to the distance between the construction area and the adjacent residences and motorists on adjacent roadways, the temporary construction security lights may result in glare to residents and motorists. However, temporary lighting would be required to be hooded or oriented away from the property boundaries pursuant to City of Hemet Municipal Code Sec. 90-1046(e), as included as PPP AE-1 in the Draft EIR, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Development of the Project would introduce new sources of light and glare into the area from street lighting, parking lot light poles, and outdoor building lighting. The spill of light onto surrounding properties and “night glow” would be reduced by using hoods and other design features on the light fixtures used within the proposed Project. The Project will comply with the City of Hemet Municipal Code Section § 90-1046(e) and confirmed by the City during the permitting process and thus would ensure that impacts related to light and glare are less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP AE-1: Exterior lighting. All lighting shall be directed or shielded away from nearby residential zones and contained within the boundaries of the site. Adequate lighting shall be provided to maintain a safe, on-site environment consistent with California Building Code (CBC) standards.

Aesthetics Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to aesthetics. A less than significant cumulative impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.1-12).

Facts in Support of Findings: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a coordinated development from implementation of the design guidelines and development standards that would

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 11
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
be ensured through the City’s development permitting process. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Other cumulative development projects are located outside of the viewshed of the Project site. As shown on Figure 5-1 of the Draft EIR, the only project within the viewshed of the proposed Project would be Rancho Diamonte II, which proposes 145 dwelling units on 4.1-acres approximately 0.55 miles north of the Project site along Sanderson Avenue.

As evidenced by the General Plan provisions, the City has long anticipated that this area would be developed for new urban uses. The cumulative change in visual condition that would result from the proposed Project, in combination with future nearby projects would not be considered adverse, because the proposed Project would implement the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code regulations as amended related to architecture, landscaping, signs, lighting, and other related items that are intended to improve visual quality. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulatively considerable impact related to scenic quality.

B. Agriculture and Forestry
Impact Finding AG-2: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract (Draft EIR at p. 5.2-8).

Facts in Support of Findings As shown on Exhibit 4.2-1 of the City of Hemet General Plan Final EIR, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract (DOC, 2022). The Project site is designated by the Hemet General Plan as Mixed Use (MU) and has a zoning designation of Business Park (B-P). The entirety of the Project site, with the exception of offsite roadways, is utilized for farming of row crops. Within the City of Hemet there are two zoning designations for agricultural uses, Light Agricultural Zone (A-1) and Heavy Agricultural Zone (A-2). As the Project site does not have an A-1 or A-2 zoning designation, the Project would not conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act Contract and impacts would be less than significant.

C. Air Quality
Impact Finding AQ-3: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-28).

Facts in Support of Findings:

CO Hotspots
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State’s one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The 2003 AQMP estimated traffic volumes that could generate CO concentrations to result in a “hot spot”. As shown on Table 5.3-9 of the Draft EIR, the busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per hour (vph) and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 12
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Operation of the proposed Project at buildout during AM peak hour would result in a total of 146 new trips through area intersections and a total of 197 new trips in the PM peak hour through area intersections. These trips would be distributed throughout the vicinity of the Project and would not result in daily traffic volumes of 100,000 vehicles per day or more. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP; and are not high enough to generate a CO “hot spot”. Therefore, impacts related to CO “hot spots” from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts
Table 5.3-10 of the Draft EIR identifies daily localized emissions that are estimated to occur during construction of the Project. As shown, emissions during the peak construction activity would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds under this scenario, and impacts would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts
As shown on Table 5.3-11, emissions from operation of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the nearest sensitive receptor.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to localized operational emissions.

Friar Ranch Case
The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence).

For extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 lbs./day of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3. The proposed Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC emissions as shown on Tables 5.3-7 and 5.3-8 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Diesel Mobile Source Health Risk
A Construction and Operational 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 DPM as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during construction and operation of the proposed buildings. SCAQMD recommends using a risk level of 10 in one million as the cancer risk threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 people, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time.

Construction Impacts. The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project constructionsource DPM emissions is Location R1 which is located approximately 1,607 feet west of the Project site at an existing residence located at 35125 Simpson Road. As shown in Table 5.3-12 of the Draft EIR, at the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 0.55 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD significance

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 13
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Location R1 is the nearest receptor to the Project site and would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during Project construction due to meteorological conditions at the site. 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. As such, construction of the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Residential Exposure.

The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R3 which is located approximately 1,993 feet northeast of the Project site at an existing residence located at 5599 Cottage Drive, as shown on Figure 5-3.1 of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR, the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 1.47 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of

1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project operational activity. All other receptors would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.

Worker Exposure
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor located approximately 405 feet west of the Project site. As shown in Table 5.3-13 of the Draft EIR, at the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.09 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be less than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby workers.

School Child Exposure
The nearest schools are Harmony Elementary School, which is located approximately 7,063 feet northeast of the Project site, and West Valley High School, which is located approximately 7,780 feet northeast of the Project site. Because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than 0.25 mile or 1320 feet, from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the Project.

Combined Construction and Operational Impacts
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source and operationalsource DPM emissions is Location R1, which is 1,607 feet from the Project site. The MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions are 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 than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 14
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
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. All other receptors are located further away from construction activity and would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.

Construction of the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences and impacts would be less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP AQ-3: Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. The Project is required to obtain a permit from SCAQMD for the proposed diesel fire pump and would be required to comply with Rule 1470, regulating the use of diesel-fueled internal combustion engines.

Impact Finding: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-41).

Facts in Support of Findings: The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities.

The proposed Project would implement industrial warehouse development within the Project site.

This land use does not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. In addition, all Project-generated solid waste would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations and would not generate objectionable odors. If potential concerns related to odors are identified for future building uses, the City would require appropriate hazardous materials permitting (as detailed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR) and odor minimization plans or features would be required in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, included as PPP AQ-4 of the Draft EIR, which would prevent nuisance odors. Therefore, impacts associated with other operation- and construction-generated emissions, such as odors, would be less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP AQ-4: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

D. Energy
Impact Finding E-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-7).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 15
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms, petroleum-based fuels, electricity, and energy used in the production of construction materials.

Construction activities related to each phase of the proposed warehouse Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than other development projects in southern California.

The energy analysis modeling for construction of the Project (included as Appendix G to the Draft EIR) details that the total construction would utilize 894,494 kWh of electricity as detailed in Table

5.6-1 of the Draft EIR. Also, as shown in Table 5.6-2 of the Draft EIR, construction of the Project is estimated to result in the need for 146,442 gallons of diesel fuel.

Construction contractors are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption on the Project site. Overall, construction activities would require limited energy consumption and would comply with all existing regulations. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in equipment within buildings, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity and water to the areas where they would be consumed.

As detailed in Table 5.6-5 of the Draft EIR, operation of the Project is estimated to result in an annual VMT of 14,754,276 miles and a fuel consumption of 773,174 gallons per year. CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of vehicles to no more than 5 minutes.

The idling restrictions would preclude unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of trucks. As presented in Table 5.6-6 of the Draft EIR, Project stationary sources would consume an estimated 3,428 gallons of diesel fuel. Operation of the cargo handling equipment would require approximately 18,568 kBTU per year of natural gas, as shown on Table

5.6-7 of the Draft EIR. The proposed buildings would not utilize natural gas. As shown on Table 5.6- 8 of the Draft EIR, the Project would utilize approximately 5,892,788 kWh per year of electricity.

Furthermore, the Project buildings would be solar ready in compliance with current Title 24 requirements, which would allow for installation of rooftop solar. As such, the Project would not inhibit the use of renewable energy.

Because this use of energy is typical for urban development as discussed in the Energy Analysis included in the Draft EIR Appendix G, no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption, and through City permitting process, assurance would be provided that existing regulations related to energy efficiency and consumption, such as Title 24 regulations and CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) related to idling, would be implemented. Therefore, impacts related to operational energy consumption would be less than significant.

Impact Finding E-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-12).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 16
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of proposed Project. The City’s administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. The Project buildings would be solar ready in compliance with current Title 24 requirements, which would allow for installation of solar.

Moreover, the City of Hemet adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2018 to help reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). The CAP outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City’s long-term vision can be achieved. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project would be consistent with CAP energy and water efficiency strategies, which would reduce the Project’s overall energy consumption. Overall, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.

Energy Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to Energy. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.6-13).

Facts in Support of Findings: All development projects throughout the region are required to comply with the energy efficiency standards in the Title 24 requirements. Additionally, some of the developments could provide for additional reductions in energy consumption by use of solar panels, sky lights, etc. With implementation of the existing energy conservation regulations, cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would not be cumulatively wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Petroleum consumption associated with the proposed Project would be primarily attributable to transportation, especially vehicular use. However, state fuel efficiency standards and alternative fuels policies (per AB 1007 Pavely) would contribute to a reduction in fuel use, and the federal Energy Independence and Security Act and the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan would reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources. For these reasons, the consumption of petroleum would not occur in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner and would be less than cumulatively considerable.

E. Geology and Soils
Impact Finding GEO-1ii: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is within a seismically active region, with numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions. Therefore, Project implementation could subject people and structures to hazards from ground shaking. However, seismic shaking is a risk throughout southern California, and the Project site is not at greater risk of seismic activity or impacts as compared to other areas within the region.

The CBC includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by major structural failures or loss of life resulting from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. For example, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads.

The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 17
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
for onsite soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height.

The City has adopted the CBC as part of its Municipal Code (Chapter 14, Article II, Section 14-40), which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC. The Project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC for structural safety would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process and is included as PPP GEO-1, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code as included in Chapter 14, Article II, Division 3, Section 14-40 of the Hemet Municipal Code to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic and soils hazards.

CBC related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the proposed Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval.

Impact Finding GEO-1iii: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-10).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Report (included as Appendix H to the Draft EIR) determined that the use of shallow foundations, as proposed by the Project, would resist the effects of settlement such that the proposed buildings would not catastrophically fail in the event of a seismically induced liquefaction event. In addition, all structures built in the City are required to be developed in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), which is adopted as City of Hemet Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article II, Division 3, Section 14-40.

Compliance with the CBC would require proper construction of building foundations and floor slabs to withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix H) includes recommendations for grading and foundation strength, such as the use of reinforcements, that would ensure that the proposed Project would be consistent with CBC requirements for reducing risk related to liquefaction.

The City of Hemet Building and Safety Division reviews structural plans and geotechnical data prior to issuance of a grading permit and conducts inspections during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC measures are incorporated. Compliance with the CBC as included as a condition of approval and verified by the City’s review process would ensure that impacts related to liquefaction are less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP GEO-1: CBC Compliance. As listed previously.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 18
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Impact Finding GEO-1iv: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Draft EIR at p. 5.7- 10).

Facts in Support of Findings: According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix H to the Draft EIR), the Project site is relatively flat, with an approximately 0.6 slope in the southerly direction, and the immediate vicinity does not contain any hills or steep slopes. The Project site is not directly adjacent to the Domenigoni Mountains; the nearest foothills of the mountains are 0.3 miles to the southeast of the Project site. As such, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.

Impact Finding GEO-2: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-10).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Grading activities that would be required for the Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. However, Hemet Municipal Code Chapter 67 requires the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Section 67-18 requires that such an erosion and sediment control plan must meet the objectives of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R8-2013-0024 (MS4 Permit).

Pursuant to the MS4 Permit requirements, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by these City and RWQCB regulations to be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which would be implemented by the City’s conditions of approval. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil. With compliance with the Municipal Code Section 67-18, stormwater management requirements, RWQCB SWPPP requirements, and installation of BMPs, which would be implemented by the City’s Project review by the Building and Safety Division, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping adjacent to the proposed buildings and throughout the proposed parking areas. With this landscaping, areas of exposed topsoil that could erode by wind or water, would not exist upon operation of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the hydrologic features of the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the proposed infiltration basins, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that RWQCB requirements and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, with implementation of existing requirements, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Impact Finding GEO-3: The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would be unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-11).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 19
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix H to the Draft EIR) describes that native alluvium soils encountered beneath the artificial fill at all of the boring locations generally possess medium dense silty sands, sandy silts, and sands with varying amounts of silt with varying clay content. The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the recommended remedial grading would remove all undocumented fill soils and a portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils and replace these soils as compacted structural fill (SCG, 2022). Excavation and recompaction of the artificial fill soils and near-surface alluvium would be conducted in compliance with the CBC as required through the City’s permitting process.

The Project site and the adjacent parcels are relatively flat and do not contain any hills or steep slopes. There is approximately 9 feet of elevation differential throughout the site (Appendix H to the Draft EIR). In addition, remedial grading and site preparation would further level the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to landslides resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Potentially liquefiable soils were found between depths of approximately 30 and 50 feet. Soils below the historic high groundwater table are considered non-liquefiable due to an adequate factor of safety or adequate cohesive characteristic. As recommended by the Geotechnical Investigation, (Appendix H to the Draft EIR) the use of shallow foundations would prevent the potential collapse of soil as a result of Project implementation.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, (Draft EIR Appendix H) an estimated shrinkage potential of 3 to 13 percent is expected during removal and recompaction of the artificial fill and near-surface native soils. A subsidence of 0.1 feet in the soils below the zone of removal is estimated to occur within the Project site. Compliance with the CBC would be required by the Hemet Building and Safety Division, as implemented as a condition of approval in connection with grading and building permits. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process, would ensure that impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant.

Impact Finding GEO-4: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in table 18-1-B of the uniform building code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-12).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Investigation describes that the Project site’s nearsurface soils consist of silty sands, sands, and sandy silts with no appreciable clay content. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, these materials are considered non-expansive (Appendix H to the Draft EIR). In addition, as described above, compliance with the CBC is a standard City practice and is included as a condition of approval. Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process, would ensure that expansive soil related impacts would be less than significant.

Geology and Soils Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to geology and soils. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.7-13).

Facts in Support of Findings: Direct and indirect impacts related to geology and soils would be mitigated through mandatory conformance with the CBC, City of Hemet Municipal Code, and sitespecific geotechnical recommendations, which would be incorporated as part of the Project’s design and construction efforts. With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions are unique to each project site, and inherently restricted to the developments proposed. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 20
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects at the Project site.

Impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil could be cumulatively considerable. However, mandates related to the NPDES permit, preparation of a WQMP, Erosion Control Plan, and SWPPP, as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) incorporate measures during construction activities to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts, thus cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.

F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Finding HAZ-1: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR at p.

5.9-13).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Project construction would involve the use and disposal of various hazardous materials. However, construction contractors would be required to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, construction activities would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is mandated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (included as PPP HYD-1 herein) and enforced by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City during the construction permitting and inspection process. Mandatory compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities at the Project site would be ensured during Project permitting procedures by City of Hemet Building and Safety requirements to limit potentially significant hazards to construction workers, the public, and the environment, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Depending on the type of operators that would occupy the proposed buildings, operations would require the use of various types and quantities of hazardous materials, including lubricants, solvents, cleaning agents, wastes, paints and related wastes, petroleum, wastewater, batteries, (lead acid, nickel cadmium, nickel, iron, carbonate), scrap metal, and used tires. Under California Health and Safety Code Section § 25531 et seq., CalEPA requires businesses operating with a regulated substance that exceeds a specified threshold quantity to register with a managing local agency, known as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). In Hemet, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) is the CUPA. The Riverside County DEH requires businesses subject to any of the CUPA permits to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). Compliance with existing laws and regulations governing hazard and hazardous materials would reduce potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of the hazardous materials to less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. Since this Project is one acre or more, the permit holder shall comply with all of the applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 21
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
(NPDES) and shall conform to NPDES Best Management Practices for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) during the life of this permit. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits - whichever comes first - the Applicant shall provide the Building and Safety Department evidence of submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop and implement a SWPPP and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.

Impact Finding HAZ-2: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset of accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to the environment (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-14).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Equipment that would be used in construction of the Project has the potential to release gas, oils, greases, solvents, and spills of paint and other finishing substances. However, the amount of hazardous materials onsite would be limited, and construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials storage and handling, as well as to implement construction BMPs (through implementation of a required SWPPP implemented by City conditions of approval, and included as PPP HYD-1 to prevent a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, which is mandated by the City through construction permitting, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The future tenants within the Project site may use, store, and dispose of various types and quantities of hazardous materials that would be required to comply with regulations and standards. The proposed development would be required to implement a WQMP, included as PPP HYD-2. BMPs would be incorporated in the WQMP that would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project.

Therefore, operations within the Project site would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident involving hazardous material.

Impacts related to hazardous materials from operation would be less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. Prior to the approval of the Grading Plan and issuance of Grading Permits a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Building and Safety Department. The WQMP shall identify all Post-Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be incorporated into the development Project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters.

Impact Finding HAZ-3: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-15).

Facts in Support of Findings:

The closest school sites to the Project site are the Harmony Elementary School, located at 1500 South Cawston Avenue, Hemet, CA 92545, approximately 7,063 feet (or 1.4 miles) northeast of

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 22
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
the Project site, and West Valley High School, which is located at 3401 Mustang Way, Hemet, approximately 7,780 feet northeast (1.47 miles) of the Project site. Therefore, there are no schools located within 0.25 mile of the Project site. As such, there would be no impacts that would occur to schools within 0.25 mile of the Project.

The use of hazardous materials related to the proposed industrial uses would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of accidental release into the environment. Further, emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis in Section 5.3, Air Quality of this Draft EIR, which determined that emissions generated from the proposed Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, including schools. Thus, the proposed Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of school, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding HAZ-5: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport use, airport, or public use airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-16).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the HemetRyan Airport. According to the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan the Project site is in Zone E of the Airport Influence Area which is the outermost zone and does not have compatibility criteria limits related to development standards and is located outside all three of the designated Hemet-Ryan Airport noise contours (55 CNEL, 60 CNEL and 65 CNEL). Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working within two miles of a public airport, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding HAZ-6: The Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-16).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within and adjacent to the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. During construction of the Project driveways and connections to existing infrastructure along Simpson Road and Warren Road, the roadways would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Construction activities within the Project site that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles during required temporary road restrictions (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). In accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code, prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-ofway, the area of encroachment must be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices to ensure that construction activities do not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation.

Therefore, the Project would not block any routes that could be used as evacuation or conflict with an emergency response plan, and impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response of evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project would include vehicular access to the Project site from six driveways along Simpson Road. As described in Section 5.15, Transportation, these driveways would provide adequate and

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 23
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a variety of routes for emergency responders to access the site and surrounding areas. Furthermore, drivers are expected to comply with all state driving laws, roadway signage, as well as restrictions related to vehicle stopping and parking. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation or interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding HAZ-7: The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (Draft EIR at p. 5.9-17).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is currently utilized for farming activities and contains no existing structures, other than irrigation infrastructure and is located in an agricultural area that is not within an identified wildland fire hazard area, as identified by CAL Fire, or an area where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Project implementation would require adherence to the City’s Land Development and Engineering Standards and the following sections of the City Development Code to reduce potential fire hazards: Chapter 14: Buildings and Building Regulations, Division 5 - California Electrical Code; Division 6 - California Mechanical Code; and Division 10 - California Fire Code. The Project would also be required to comply with guidelines from the Hemet Fire Department related to fire prevention and would be subject to review for fire safety during the plan check process by the City’s Building and Safety Division in connection with the issuance of permits for the Project. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.

G. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Finding HYD-1: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-11).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Pollutants of concern during construction activities generally include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction, which would have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into nearby receiving waters and eventually may affect surface or groundwater quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, thereby increasing the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur compared to existing conditions.

In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil and/or spoil from work areas to paved roadways, which is another form of erosion that could affect water quality.

However, the use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit and included as PPP HYD-1 would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Pursuant to City of Hemet Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-471, Compliance with the NPDES Permit, the Project Applicant would be required to implement the requirements of the NPDES permit. Compliance with the Hemet Municipal Code, MS4 permit, and other applicable requirements, which would be verified during the City’s construction permitting process, would ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 24
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Operation
In accordance with State Water Resources Board Order R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618033, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs, included as PPP HYD-2. Runoff would be detained in either one of the four underground infiltration basins and/or one of the two above ground infiltration basins for high flow storm events throughout the Project site as shown in Figure 5.10-1 of the Draft EIR.

Per the City of Hemet Storm Drain Criteria and Drainage Design Manual, the Project would be retaining the post-development 100-year, 3-hour storm volume requirement of 437,103 CF. As shown in Table 5.10-2, the proposed Project would be sized to capture a total volume of 553,321 CF, thereby 26.5 percent above the City’s requirement. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that is outlined in the WQMP (Appendix L2) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the Project permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-2: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-17).

Facts in Support of Findings: Development of the proposed Project would introduce approximately 2,598,375 SF of impervious surfaces to the existing vacant site conditions. The proposed Project would install an on-site storm drain system that would convey runoff to four underground infiltration basins and two above ground infiltration basins that would capture, filter, and infiltrate runoff. The Project would also include 483,977 SF of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater on-site. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-3: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-17).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
The Project site is generally flat and does not contain substantial slopes that could induce significant erosion or siltation. There are also no streams or rivers on site. Project construction would be permitted under the NPDES Construction General Permit (PPP HYD-1), which requires preparation

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 25
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP is required to address site specific conditions related to potential sources for sedimentation and erosion and would list the required BMPs that are necessary to reduce or eliminate the potential of erosion or alteration of drainage pattern during construction activities. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and a SWPPP prepared by a QSD and implemented by a QSP would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential alteration of a drainage pattern or erosion from development activities.

Operation
The development would result in an increase in impervious areas and the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, the stormwater runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces onsite from development of the Project would be conveyed into four underground and two above ground infiltration basins. 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 meet the City’s NPDES Permit requirements and limit the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, adherence to the existing regulations and PPP HYD-2 would ensure that Project impacts related to erosion and siltation from operational impacts would be less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-4: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-19).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on- or off-site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to eliminate the potential for flooding or alteration of the drainage pattern during construction activities.

Compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit and a SWPPP, as verified by the City through the construction permitting process, would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential increase in runoff or flooding on or off-site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As a result of the proposed increase impervious surface area, the Project would increase surface flows, compared to existing conditions. However, installation of new storm water drainage facilities and pervious landscaped areas would be installed by the Project which would ensure that stormwater would be captured and treated onsite and not be allowed to flow off site. The proposed

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 26
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
infiltration system would capture the Project’s 100-year, 3-hour storm volume requirement, per the County’s LID requirements. In addition, landscaped areas would accept runoff water from impervious surfaces and control the rate and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount of discharge into the off-site drainage system. Thus, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, such that flooding would occur, and impacts would be less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed previously.

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-5: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-19).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed infiltration system 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 the Salt Creek Channel with a maximum outlet flow rate equal or less than the existing condition 100-year and 3- hour storm event. The Preliminary WQMP details that the storm drain facilities would be sized adequately for the 100-year, 3-hour storm volume requirement. Additionally, infiltration through underlying soil media would provide additional filtration and treatment of captured stormwater runoff. Runoff would flow through a series of gravel and media, as well as the proposed infiltration basin, prior to entering the storm drain system and the Salt Creek Channel. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and/or additional sources of polluted runoff.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-6: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-20).

Facts in Support of Findings: According to FEMA FIRM Map 06065C2085G, the Project site is within a “0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Zone X” flood plain area defined as areas of 1 percent 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.

The proposed Project would install an on-site storm drain system and landscaping that would capture, filter, and infiltrate runoff. The design runoff volume would be stored and infiltrated to meet the 100-year, 3-hour storm volume requirement, and any additional runoff volume generated by the high flow runoff storm event would be discharged via an outlet pipe and conveyed downstream to Salt Creek Channel. The drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to adequately accommodate the stormwater flows from the proposed development and are

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 27
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
consistent with the County and City drainage plans and MS4 permit requirements. Thus, although the proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, the proposed drainage infrastructure would maintain the existing drainage pattern and accommodate flows, such that storm flows would not be impeded or redirected. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Plans, Program and Policies:

PPP HYD-2: WQMP. As listed previously.

Impact Finding HYD-7: The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-20).

Facts in Support of Findings: According to FEMA FIRM Map 16071C8665H, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone and would result in a less than significant impact on flood hazard. In addition, tsunamis are large waves that occur in coastal areas; therefore, since the City is not located in a coastal area, no impacts due to tsunamis would occur.

As shown in Figure 5.10-2 of the Draft EIR, the Project site is within the dam inundation area of Diamond Valley Lake. Diamond Valley Lake is a water storage reservoir approximately 3.5 miles south of the Project site. Dam failure and inundation could occur when an earthquake, design flaw, or overflow during storms cause a dam to flood. The nearest active fault zone is the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately five miles northeast of the lake. Due to the Project’s proximity to the Saddle Dam and lake, this would result in flood hazard impacts.

The General Plan includes policies and programs PS-PS-6, PS-6.1, PS-6.2, PS-6.5, PS-6.7, and PS6.8, which would prevent the exposure of people or structures to flood hazards, including dam inundation and seiche hazards. The policies and programs ensure waterways and channels are clear and preserved in a natural state, ensure potential flood hazards are mitigated, require identification of funding sources, require incorporation of state and federal flood zone regulations into the City’s Municipal Code, require appropriate flood control facilities for all development, and require site-specific studies to identify setbacks from a floodway. In addition, future land uses consistent with the City’s General Plan would not place housing or other structures in a 100-year flood hazard area, within which the Project is not located. Therefore, due to compliance with and implementation of General Plan policies and programs, potential dam inundation impacts would be less than significant.

In summary, impacts regarding release of pollutants due to Project inundation from flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiches would be less than significant.

Impact Finding HYD-8: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-25).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP during Project construction to avoid potential construction-related water quality impacts (PPP HYD-1 and PPP HYD-2) per the Construction General Permit. The Project applicant would also be required to prepare and implement a WQMP to treat and capture post-construction stormwater runoff as part of Project operation per the County’s MS4 NPDES permit. Through implementation of the applicable construction and post-construction permitting requirements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), it is anticipated that existing and future water entitlements from groundwater, surface

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 28
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
water, and purchased or imported water sources, plus recycling and conservation, would be sufficient to meet the forecast demand for EMWD's entire service area. The Project’s components are not anticipated to obstruct groundwater facilities as groundwater facilities are not planned by EMWD for this Project. Thus, impacts related to conflict with, or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to Hydrology and Water Quality. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.10-25).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Water Quality
Related developments within the watershed would be required to implement water quality control measures pursuant to the same NPDES General Construction Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP (for construction), a WQMP (for operation) and BMPs to eliminate or reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges, reduce runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and increase filtration and infiltration, in areas permitted. The NPDES permit requirements have been set by the SWRCB and implemented by the Santa Ana RWQCB to reduce incremental effects of individual projects so that they would not become cumulatively considerable. Therefore, overall potential impacts to water quality associated with present and future development in the watershed would not be cumulatively considerable with compliance with all applicable laws, permits, ordinances and plans. The proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with all regulations, as would be verified during the permitting process. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.

Drainage
With implementation of the Project the onsite pervious surfaces would increase, and stormwater runoff would be accommodated by the proposed stormwater drainage basin infrastructure.

Additionally, existing drainage flow patterns would be maintained. As a result, the proposed Project would not generate runoff that could combine with additional runoff from cumulative Projects that could cumulatively combine to impact drainage. Thus, cumulative impacts related to drainage would be less than significant.

H. Land Use and Planning
Impact Finding LU-2: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Draft EIR at p. 5.11-19).

Facts in Support of Findings:
2020 RTP/SCS
The 2020 RTP/SCS Goals that are relevant to the proposed Project focus largely on maximizing mobility, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs, and providing efficiency. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS goals, as detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.11-1. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflict with RTP/SCS goals, and impacts would not occur.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 29
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Land Use Consistency
Under the General Plan the Project site is assigned a Land Use Designation of Mixed Use (MU) and is zoned Business Park (B-P) under the Zoning Map. The Project would include a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Land Use Designation from MU to BP, consistent with existing BP zoning. The General Plan states that the BP designation provides for single and multitenant light industrial, flex office, and office uses. Suitable uses include corporate and general business offices, medical uses, research and development, e-commerce, and light manufacturing. B-P allows for industrial and related uses including warehousing/distribution, assembly and light manufacturing, repair facilities, and business parks, including corporate offices developed at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan designation following approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment.

General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives
A detailed analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan that serve to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts is provided in Table 5.11-2 of the Draft EIR. As described, the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts, and impacts related to conflict with a General Plan policy related to an environmental effect would be less than significant.

Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
The Project site is located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the Hemet-Ryan Airport. The HemetRyan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) as adopted in 1992 and amended in 2009 is the applicable Compatibility Plan for the Hemet-Ryan Airport. The most recent Hemet-Ryan ALUCP was adopted on February 9, 2017, and establishes a compatibility map delineation, and specific compatibility policies.

According to the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan the Project site is in Zone E of the Airport Influence Area and is located outside all three of the designated Hemet-Ryan Airport noise contours (55 CNEL, 60 CNEL and 65 CNEL). The site is also outside of the established airport safety zones. Additionally, given that the proposed Project would include a General Plan Amendment, ALUC review of the Project is required.

Land Use and Planning Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to Land Use and Planning. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p.

5.11-45).

Facts in Support of Findings: Cumulative projects in the City of Hemet would utilize regional planning documents such as SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS during planning, and the City’s General Plan, to the extent that they are applicable. Cumulative projects in this jurisdiction would be required to comply with the applicable land use plan or they would not be approved without a General Plan amendment.

While the Project requires a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation of the site, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation after the amendment and would be consistent with the surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 30
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
I. Noise
Impact Finding NOI-2: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-33).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Demolition, excavation, and grading activities are required for the Project and can result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Table 5.12-19 of the Draft EIR presents the expected Projectrelated vibration levels at the adjacent receiver locations. At distances ranging from 930 to 1,993 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.001 PPV in/sec and would not exceed the FTA’s most stringent threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold at any receiver locations. Other building structures surrounding the Project site are farther away and would experience further reduced vibration. Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the proposed industrial warehouse buildings would include heavy trucks for loading dock activities, deliveries, and moving trucks, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Typical vibration levels for heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA’s Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements onsite and on Simpson Road and Warren Road would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than FTA’s Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment vibration standard of 0.2 in/sec PPV, and therefore, would be less than significant.

Impact Finding NOI-3: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport noise related to a public airport (Draft EIR at p. 5.12-34).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of Hemet-Ryan (HR) Airport. Policy 4.1.5 Noise Exposure for Other Land Uses of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Policy Document (RC ALUCP) indicates that the Project’s industrial land uses would experience clearly acceptable exterior noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL. The Project site is located outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundaries and is considered clearly acceptable. Therefore, based on the RC ALUCP compatibility criteria, “the activities associated with the specified land use can be carried out with essentially no interference from the noise exposure.” Thus, implementation and development of the Project would not result in a safety hazard or exposure to excessive noise for people residing or working in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

J. Population and Housing
Impact Finding POP-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-6).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would result in an overall site FAR of approximately 0.43, which is within the allowed maximum FAR of 0.60 for the Business Park land

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 31
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
use designation. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve construction of any new residential uses and would not contribute to a direct increase in the City’s population. Thus, buildout of the proposed Project would be within the maximum planned development capacity under the General Plan. However, the proposed Project may indirectly contribute to population growth within the City by creating jobs both during construction and operation.

Construction
Based on construction estimates from the Air Quality Impact Analysis (included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR), construction would require approximately 250 construction workers during this 14- month period. Workers are anticipated to come from the City and surrounding jurisdictions and commute daily to the jobsite. Approximately 2,623 individuals are employed in the construction industry in the City of Hemet and 77,582 individuals are employed in the construction industry in Riverside County as a whole, which could meet the construction needs of the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth directly or indirectly through construction employment that could cause substantial adverse physical changes in the environment. Construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
For purposes of analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment density factors utilized in the County of Riverside General Plan EIR listed in Table 3.G – Employment Factors. The General Plan EIR estimates that Light Industrial (LI) uses would employ approximately one worker for every 1,030 SF of building area. Thus, the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,158 employees.

As shown in Table 5.13-3 of the Draft EIR, employment in the City of Hemet is expected to increase by 19,074 jobs between 2021 and 2045. Based on these growth projections, full buildout of the Project would represent approximately 6.1 percent of projected employment growth within the City of Hemet. Thus, the employment growth that would occur from the proposed Project is within the growth projections used to prepare SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

The employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from within the City or the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Hemet as of August 2023 was 6.3 percent, and the County of Riverside was 5.4 percent. Thus, direct impacts related to population growth in an area would be less than significant.

Infrastructure
Development of the proposed Project includes installation of new onsite water, sewer, stormwater drainage lines, and improved roadways as outlined in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, Project Description. These improvements are all planned for by the City of Hemet General Plan and would not constitute roadway expansions that would indirectly contribute to population growth.

The Project includes construction of an off-site 24-inch sewer main in Simpson Road. Under the General Plan, the Project site and vicinity were assumed to be built out consistent with mixed use development. Therefore, buildout of infrastructure within the Project vicinity has been planned for by the General Plan. Thus, the infrastructure proposed by the Project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly that could cause substantial adverse physical changes in the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 32
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Population and Housing Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to population and housing. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.13-7).

Facts in Support of Findings: The existing land use designation of the site is Mixed Use to Business Park that allows a FAR of up to 0.60. As the Project would result in a FAR of 0.43, the proposed Project would not exceed the planned growth of the area and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in growth within the City of Hemet.

The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,158 permanent jobs at full buildout, which is 6.1 percent of the growth projection anticipated by SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, to occur between 2021 and 2045. The proposed Project is within the growth projections used to prepare RTP/SCS, thus, impacts related to cumulative growth would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

K. Public Services
Impact Finding PS-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-8).

Facts in Support of Findings: Construction and operation of the Project would increase the number of structures and employees in the Project area thus increasing demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, there are five existing fire stations that currently serve the City, three of which are within 5.0 miles of the Project site. The closest fire station to the Project site, Station 4, is located at 1035 S Cawston Avenue, approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the Project site.

The proposed warehouse buildings would be concrete (which is generally non-flammable) tilt up construction which contains a low fire hazard risk rating with a wood roof. The buildings would be equipped with one of more of the following: fire extinguishers, wet and dry sprinkler systems, preaction sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire pumps, backflow devices, and clean agent waterless fire suppression systems pursuant to the California Fire Code adopted under Chapter 14, Section 40 of the Municipal Code, CBC, and other existing regulations regarding fire safety, as currently adopted by the City. The Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code which would minimize the demand upon fire stations, personnel, and equipment. Additionally, the Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees pursuant to Municipal Code, Chapter 58-61. Development impact fees collected would ensure the level of fire protection services in the City and particularly around the Project site, are maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed.

Therefore, Project impacts to fire services would be less than significant.

Impact Finding PS-2: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times or other performance objectives for police services (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: Operation of the Project is estimated to generate a need for 1,158 employees. It is anticipated that some of these employees would come from within the region and thus would not contribute to a large increase in population. The police station that would serve the Project site is the west end Substation, located approximately 4.1 miles northeast of the Project site.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 33
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Because the Project would not contribute to a substantial or unanticipated population increase as discussed in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR, Population and Housing, the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded police services or facilities to support the Project.

Additionally, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees outlined as the Capital Facility Fee pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 58. The collection of development impact fees would ensure the level of police protection services is maintained and the fees can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed. Therefore, Project impacts to police services would be less than significant.

Impact Finding PS-3: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with school services or the provision of new or physically altered school facilities (Draft EIR at p.

5.14-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project is not anticipated to contribute a large increase in population, as the employees needed to operate the Project are anticipated to come from within the Project region as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.13, Population and Housing, and substantial in-migration of employees that could generate new students is not anticipated to occur.

Additionally, under state law, development projects are required to pay school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) at the time of building permit issuance (included as PPP PS1). The funding program established by SB 50 allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs and has been found by the legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act…on the provision of adequate school facilities” (Government Code Section § 65995[h]). As such, impacts on school services would be less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP PS-1: School Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the Hemet Unified School District related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section § 65995 et seq.

Impact Finding PS-4: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with park and recreational services or the provision of new or physically altered park facilities (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-10).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed warehouse development would not directly provide new housing opportunities. Although the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,158 new employees, these employees are anticipated to come from within the Project region. Although new employees may occasionally use local parks, such an increase in use would be limited and would not result in deterioration of facilities such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. Therefore, any increased demand for public parks within the City due to Project implementation would be less than significant.

Impact Finding PS-5: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with other government services or the provision of new or physically altered public facilities (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-10).

Facts in Support of Findings: The closest library facility to the Project site is the Hemet Public Library, located at 300 East Latham Avenue, approximately 4.8 miles northeast of the site. Demand placed on libraries is based on the generation of a resident population associated with a person’s

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 34
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
place of residence, and not typically their place of employment. The closest public health care facility to the Project site is the Hemet Valley Healthcare Center, located at 371N Weston PI, approximately 5.16 miles from the Project site. The proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a population increase, as the employees needed to operate the Project are anticipated to come from within the Project region. As such, the proposed Project would not directly create a demand for public library facilities or public health care facilities (such as hospitals), nor would it directly result in the need to modify existing or construct new public service facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project would adhere to the payment of Development Impact Fees as outlined in Chapter 58 of the Municipal Code to ensure a fair share of costs associated with the proposed Project are paid for public facilities, including library facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to public facilities.

Public Services Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to Public Services. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.14-11).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would not significantly increase the need for public services in the Project area, in the cities surrounding the Project site, or within the region. The Project applicant would pay the required development impact fees and School Impact Fees. Additionally, the Project would not impact acceptable service ratios, staffing levels, adequate equipment, response times, and other performance objectives or result in the need for new or the expansion of existing government services and facilities. Related projects in the region would be required to demonstrate their level of impact on public services and also pay their proportionate development fees. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to public services.

L. Transportation
Impact Finding TR-1: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan or ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR p. 5.15-12).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Transit Facilities
The Project would include construction of new sidewalks on all Project frontages as shown in Figure 3-7 of the Draft EIR, Conceptual Site Plan, that would provide additional pedestrian access to the existing bus stops near the Project site. The proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not occur.

Bicycle Facilities
There are no existing bike routes within the vicinity of the Project site. However, the existing designated bike routes nearest the Project site include Class 2 routes along Simpson Road, Warren Avenue, Mustang Way, and Domenigoni Parkway. In addition, a Class 3 bike route is currently designated adjacent to the site to the south. Implementation of the Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur.

Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed Project would construct sidewalks along all Project frontages along Simpson Road and Waren Road, as shown in Figure 3-7 of the Draft EIR, Conceptual Site Plan. Because no

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 35
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
sidewalks currently exist along the Project site frontages, the Project would improve pedestrian facilities and the sidewalk network along the Project frontages. The proposed Project would not conflict with pedestrian facilities and would provide additional facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Truck Route Facilities
The existing truck routes that currently serve the Project vicinity include regional truck routes following SR 74, SR 79, and Domenigoni Parkway, and local truck routes following Florida Avenue, Warren Road, Sanderson Avenue, and Domenigoni Parkway. The Project includes six driveways along Simpson Road and truck movement to and from the Project site would utilize existing truck routes through the Simpson Road and Warren Road intersection. The Proposed Project is consistent with the truck routes identified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. Thus, impacts related to truck route facilities would not occur.

Roadway Facilities
Operation. As shown in Table 5.15-5 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,539 daily trips, 146 AM (112 inbound and 34 outbound) peak hour trips, and 197 PM (55 inbound and 142 outbound) peak hour trips. In terms of passenger car equivalent (PCE), the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,235 daily PCE trips, 188 AM (140 inbound and 48 outbound) peak hour PCE trips, and 240 PM (71 inbound and 169 outbound) peak hour PCE trips. The City of Hemet General Plan established a LOS policy standard within the City. According to Circulation Element Policy C-1.3, Traffic Flow, the LOS standard for the City is to “Maintain LOS C or better for roadway segment operations, and LOS D or better for peak-hour intersection movements. Although LOS congestion is no longer a CEQA significance threshold, the City uses LOS analyses to identify specific improvements that individual projects need to install or contribute to as part of maintaining and improving the overall network.

As shown in Table 5.15-6 of the Draft EIR, in Opening Year Conditions, among the study area intersections, both the intersection of SR-79 and Domenigoni Parkway and the intersection of Warren Road and Stetson Avenues would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS F during the AM & PM peak hour. Intersection #5 (Warren Road/Domenigoni Parkway) would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E during the AM peak hour. Consequently, the proposed Project’s LOS levels at the respective intersections would be above the City’s LOS standard.

It should also be noted that intersection #1 (SR 79/SR 74) would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. As such, the Project would be required to pay fair share for improvements to achieve a satisfactory intersection LOS D. As these recommended improvements are related to restriping and signal installation to existing streets, none of the improvements would result in any direct or indirect environmental impacts outside of those discussed throughout the entirety of the EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in vehicle trips that could conflict with a program, plan, or policy addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction. During construction, there would also be passenger car construction trips associated with crew arrivals and departures. The weekday AM peak period is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and the weekday PM peak period is 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. It is anticipated the majority of construction crews would arrive and depart outside the peak hours, while delivery trucks would arrive and depart throughout the day, seven days a week. As shown on Table 5.15-7 of the Draft EIR, the building construction phase of construction would generate the most vehicular trips per day from approximately 499 workers and 177 vendors per day, which would result in a total of 676 daily

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 36
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
trips. In addition, as part of the grading plan and building plan review processes, the City permits would require appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures, if any. Therefore, construction impacts related to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system would be less than significant.

Impact Finding TR-3: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-18).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
The Project proposes development of the Project site in one phase lasting approximately 14 months.

During construction, construction worker vehicles, haul trucks, and vendor trucks would be staged on the portion of the Project site under construction for the duration of the construction period. As part of the grading plan and building plan review processes, City permits would require appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures and measures to properly route heavy-duty construction vehicles entering and leaving the site (as applicable). As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features and incompatible uses during construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation
Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the Project. Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the Hemet General Plan Circulation Element.

Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

Impact Finding TR-4: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR at p.

5.15-19).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
The roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. Also, construction activities would be required to implement measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required temporary road restrictions and ensure the safety of passage in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 37
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Transportation Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to Transportation. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.15-20).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Vehicle Traveled
Cumulative VMT impacts are assessed based on the Project’s effect on overall Citywide VMT. As shown in Table 5.15-9 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in an overall reduction in Citywide VMT in both baseline and cumulative 2025 conditions. As such, cumulative VMT impacts would be less than significant.

Design, Roadway, ad Emergency Access Hazards
The proposed circulation layout would be required to be installed in conformance with City design standards to ensure that no potentially hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access would be introduced by the Project that could combine with potential hazards from other projects.

In addition, cumulative development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions would be subject to site-specific reviews, including reviews by police and fire protection authorities that would not allow potential cumulatively considerable design hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to circulation design features and emergency access would not occur from the Project and would not combine with hazards from other projects. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Alternative Transportation
Cumulative development in the City and surrounding jurisdictions would be subject to site-specific reviews, including reviews of sidewalk, bike lane, and bus stop designs that would not allow potential cumulatively considerable impacts related to alternative transportation. Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively combine with other projects to result in impacts related to alternative transportation. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

M. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact Finding UT-1: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new water facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-7).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would construct new on-site water service lines that would connect to the water main within Simpson Road. The Project would also construct new onsite irrigation lines that would connect to the existing 36-inch recycled water main in Simpson Road.

Additional off-site water infrastructure would not be required to be constructed to serve the proposed Project.

The new and existing onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed industrial warehouses and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CALGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water. Compliance with General Plan policies CSI1.2, CSI-1.3, CSI-2.1, and CSI-2.2 require coordination with EMWD to ensure that existing facilities would be able to serve the proposed Project, which has been fulfilled through preparation of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA).

The construction activities related to the new onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed warehouse facility is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Draft EIR. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the wastewater

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 38
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
infrastructure is included in Draft EIR Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise related to construction activities is included in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR, Noise and mitigation measures have been recommended, as necessary. Since the Project proposes to connect to existing water infrastructure, it would not result in the construction of new offsite water facilities or expansion of existing offsite facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding UT-2: The City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years (Drafty EIR at p. 5.17-7).

Facts in Support of Findings: A WSA (included as Appendix P to the Draft EIR) was prepared by EMWD to evaluate the capacity for the District to supply water to the Project. Based on the General Plan land use, the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assumed that the parcels comprising the Project site would be developed as a mixed-use area; as such, the projected demand of the site was estimated to be 175.56 AFY (Appendix P). However, based on the specifics of the proposed Project, EMWD determined that the Project would require approximately 41.50 AFY, which is well below the limits of the estimated demand considered in the 2020 UWMP.

The UWMP assessed the projected water demand and supply in the service area and concluded that EMWD has an adequate water supply to meet demands under all climatic conditions (normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years) within its service area through 2045.

It is anticipated that existing and future water entitlements from groundwater, surface water, and purchased or imported water sources, plus recycling and conservation, would be sufficient to meet the Project's demand at buildout, in addition to forecast demand for EMWD's entire service area.

Thus, impacts related to the need for new or expanded water supplies and entitlements would be less than significant.

Impact Finding UT-3: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-10).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would install on-site sewer infrastructure and a new 24-inch sewer main in Simpson Road, which is part of construction of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those described throughout the EIR.

For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the wastewater infrastructure is included in Draft EIR Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise related to construction activities is included in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR, Noise, and mitigation measures have been recommended, as necessary. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be compliant with the City of Hemet General Plan Policies CSI-1.2 and CSI1.3, which requires coordination with EMWD during design of the proposed sewer line.

As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve Project operations, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, potential impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Impact Finding UT-4: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-10).

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 39
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Facts in Support of Findings: The San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which would serve the site, has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 7 million gallons per day.

Implementation of the Project would utilize approximately 1.2 percent of the daily excess treatment capacity. Thus, the wastewater treatment plant has ample capacity, and the proposed Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facility (such as conveyance lines or treatment facilities). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity.

Impact Finding UT-5: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-13).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project’s runoff would be collected by two underground infiltration chambers at Building 1, two underground infiltration chambers and one aboveground infiltration basin at Building 2, and an aboveground infiltration basin in the ancillary truck trailer lot. Onsite basins would include an emergency pump overflow that would discharge onsite and ultimately discharge to Salt Creek Channel, mimicking existing conditions. A 24-inch storm drain would also be constructed to connect with the existing drain line on Warren Road. The proposed Project would not require the construction of new public drainage facilities.

Impacts associated with the Project’s proposed onsite stormwater drainage infrastructure, such as air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise, are included as part of the construction of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in their respective sections of the EIR. Therefore, Project impacts due to stormwater drainage infrastructure would be less than significant.

Impact Finding UT-6: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-15).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,319 tons of waste. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, construction activities would generate approximately 812 tons of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills. As described in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, Project Description, construction activities would occur over a 14-month period. This equates to approximately 2 tons of debris per day (excluding landfill closure days). Therefore, construction waste generated by the proposed Project would be accommodated by the landfills and would not result in excess waste.

Operation
As included within the Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, CalEEMod version 2022.1.1 estimated that the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,121 tons of solid waste per year (Draft EIR Appendix C). AB 341 requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 280 tons per year, or approximately 0.9 ton per day (excluding landfill closure days).

The El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands landfills have a daily capacity of approximately 10,779 tpd. Therefore, solid waste generated by the Project would represent 0.01 percent of the

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 40
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
landfills’ combined capacity. Thus, operational waste generated by the proposed Project would be accommodated by the landfills and the proposed Project would not result in excess solid waste.

Construction and operational impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Impact Finding UT-8: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-18).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would connect to the existing electricity power lines within Simpson Road. The Project would not require or result in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; adequate commercial electricity supplies are presently available to meet the incremental increase in demand attributed to the Project.

The proposed Project would not require the use of natural gas. Therefore, no impacts related to natural gas infrastructure would occur.

The proposed Project would connect to the existing telecommunication lines along Simpson Road, which would be provided by a private telecommunication company on an as-needed basis. The proposed Project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new communications facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Project Applicant would be responsible for coordinating with each utility company to ensure utility improvements occur according to standard construction and operation procedures administered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Each of the utility systems is available along Simpson Road, and the proposed Project would connect to these existing lines. Since the footprint of proposed utility improvements is encompassed by the Project site, impacts associated with such improvements have been addressed throughout the EIR and mitigated to the extent feasible as applicable. Therefore, potential impacts associated with utilities, including electricity, natural gas and communication systems would be less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to utilities and service systems. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.17-20).

Facts in Support of Findings:

Water
The Draft EIR determined that the Project would result in an increase in water demand of 41.50 AFY, which is 134.06 AFY less than what was anticipated for the site in the 2020 UWMP. This estimate is also conservative as it does not take into account the existing agricultural water use at the Project site. It is anticipated that existing and future water entitlements from groundwater, surface water, and purchased or imported water sources, plus recycling and conservation, would be sufficient to meet the proposed Project's demand in addition to forecast demand for EMWD’s entire service area. As a result, the Project is within the regional water demand projections for the EMWD service area and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in water supply demands that would require new or expanded entitlements. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
The sewer system and wastewater treatment plant would have sufficient capacity to handle the increased flow resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The continued regular

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 41
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
assessment, maintenance, and upgrades of the sewer system by EMWD would reduce the potential of cumulative development projects to result in a cumulatively substantial increase in wastewater such that new or expanded facilities would be required. The proposed Project, and other development projects within the City of Hemet, would be required to coordinate with EMWD to ensure adequate infrastructure would be available pursuant to General Plan policies CSI-1.2 and CSI-1.3. Thus, increases in wastewater in the sewer system would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Stormwater
Stormwater infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed Project is maintained by the City. The proposed Project includes installation of a storm drain system that would direct runoff to the on-site proposed infiltration systems. Overflow from the underground infiltration system would be directed to the Salt Creek Channel. Unless a project is within a hydromodification exemption area, state and regional regulations require development projects to maintain pre-project hydrology, such that no net increase of offsite stormwater flows would occur. RWQCB permit conditions require a hydrology/drainage study to demonstrate that all runoff would be appropriately conveyed and not leave the Project site at rates exceeding pre-project conditions, prior to receipt of necessary permits. As a result, increases of runoff from cumulative projects that could cumulatively combine to impact stormwater drainage capacity would not occur, and cumulative impacts related to drainage infrastructure would be less than significant.

Solid Waste
Based on values provided by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, the three landfills have a combined capacity of 10,779 tpd. The approximately one ton of solid waste per day from operation of the proposed Project would represent approximately 0.01 percent of total daily remaining capacity. Therefore, the landfills servicing the Citty of Hemet would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project and the increase in solid waste from full buildout of the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Dry Utilities
Cumulative impacts related to the provision of facilities for electricity and communications systems have been evaluated throughout this EIR, primarily associated with the emissions resulting from construction. Mitigation measures have been recommended in cases where cumulatively considerable impacts associated with utilities infrastructure were identified. In addition, existing dry utility lines are present along Simpson Road. Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the provision of utility facilities to serve the proposed Project would be less than significant.

N. Wildfire
Impact Finding WF-1: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan based on its location near state responsibility area and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (Draft EIR at p. 5.18-9).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within a state responsibility area or area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. Properties to the south just across Domenigoni Parkway are within very high fire hazards severity zones. The County of Riverside has implemented a Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, which the City of Hemet participates in, that identifies

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 42
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
risks by natural and human-made disasters and ways to minimize the damage from those disasters.

In addition, the City maintains its own Hemet EOP.

Construction
According to the City’s Safety Element there are no specific designated evacuation routes within the City. The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. During construction of driveways to Simpson Road, as well as connections to existing infrastructure along Simpson Road and widening of Warren Road, the roadways would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Construction activities within the Project site that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate measures to facilitate the safe passage of persons and vehicles during required temporary road restrictions. In accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area of encroachment must be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices to ensure that construction activities would not physically interfere with emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, the Project would not block any evacuation routes along any of the roadways or conflict with an emergency response plan, and impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response of evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project would include vehicular access to the Project site from Simpson Road. Building 1 would be accessed by two 40-foot-wide driveways and one 26-foot-wide driveway along Simpson Road.

Building 2 would be accessed by one 40-foot-wide driveway and one 26-foot-wide driveway. The ancillary trailer parking lot would be accessed by one 40-foot-wide driveway from Simpson Road.

Truck access would be provided through the inbound and outbound driveways along Simpson Road.

Internal circulation for Buildings 1 and 2 and the ancillary trailer parking lot would be provided by 26-foot to 70-foot-wide drive aisles. The Project would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide a variety of routes for emergency responders to access the site. Therefore, operation of the Project would not impair implementation or interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding WF-2: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire based on its location near state responsibility areas and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (Draft EIR at p. 5.18-10).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within a state responsibility area or area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. Areas adjacent to the Project site across Domenigoni Parkway to the south are classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. No significant slopes occur onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Elevations on the site range from 1,505 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the southwestern portion of the site to 1,510 feet AMSL at the northeastern portion of the site. Further, the predominant wind direction at the Project site area is typically from the west and north. This suggests that a fire burning in the foothills southeast of the Project site has a low probability of being blown toward the site during typical prevailing wind conditions. While it is possible that a wildfire does not behave according to historic weather patterns, the Project site is not within a fire hazard zone, it is unlikely that this worst-case scenario would occur.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 43
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
The Project would be required to comply with California Fire Code and City of Hemet Municipal Code Article IX, which provide requirements to reduce the potential of fires that include vegetation management, construction materials and methods, installation of automatic sprinkler systems, and fire flows (the quantity of water available for fire-protection purposes). Overall, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding WF-3: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks emergency water source, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment based on its location near state responsibility area and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (Draft EIR at p. 5.18-11).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within a state responsibility area or area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. While the Project does propose the buildout of the right of way on both Simpson and Warren Road, the Project does not include installation or maintenance of infrastructure related to fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines that could exacerbate wildfire risk. Further, the Project would be required to comply with California Fire Code and Municipal Code Article IX, which provide requirements to reduce the potential of fires that include vegetation management, construction materials and methods, installation of automatic sprinkler systems, and fire flows (the quantity of water available for fireprotection purposes). Compliance with these requirements would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. Overall, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact Finding WF-4: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes based on its location near state responsibility area and lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (Draft EIR at p. 5.18-11).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within a state responsibility area or area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. No significant slopes occur onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Elevations on the site range from 1,417 feet AMSL to 1,427 feet AMSL. The nearest slopes are located approximately 0.25-mile southeast of the Project site across Domenigoni Parkway within the Domenigoni Mountains. The nearest body of water is the Salt Creek Channel located adjacent to the southern border of the Project site. However, the Project would maintain the existing topography at the Project site and would not result in the creation of new slopes on- or offsite. As further discussed in Section 5.10 of the Draft EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, the hydrologic features of the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater with landscaping and the proposed aboveground and underground infiltration basins, which would also reduce the potential for flooding onsite from runoff from wildfire-affected areas.

As such, should a wildfire occur within the vicinity of the Project site, the drainage facilities onsite would capture and slow post-fire runoff, minimizing the potential for flooding downstream.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wildfire Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to wildfire. A less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR at p. 5.18-12).

Facts in Support of Findings: As with the proposed Project, any cumulative project that is proposed to be constructed adjacent to or within a fire hazard zone, either in a local responsibility area or State responsibility area, would be required to adhere to the requirements set forth in the California

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 44
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Fire Code and Hemet Municipal Code. Cumulative projects as well as the proposed Project would be required to include fire sprinklers and fire alarms as required by existing regulation, which would be verified through the City’s permitting process. Compliance with state and local standards would minimize wildfire risk at each project location. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 45
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025

SECTION IV

IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that would avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that would reduce them to a less than significant level are detailed in the EIR and summarized below.

A. Air Quality
Impact Finding AQ-1: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-24).

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR Facts in Support of Findings: The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project site. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.

The projections contained in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on the assumptions in SCAG’s RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and employment growth trends. According to SCAG’s 2020—2045 RTP/SCS, employment in the City of Hemet is expected to increase by 18,500 jobs between 2016 and 2045. Based on the Riverside County General Plan EIR employment generation factors of 1,030 SF of Light Industrial (LI) uses per employee, implementation of the proposed Project would create up to an additional 1,158 jobs in Hemet. The additional 1,158 employees would fall within the 18,500 projected jobs for the City. Therefore, the Project’s labor demand would not substantially increase population, households, or employment in the City. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP and would not result in an impact related to Criterion No.1.

Construction of the proposed Project would result in regional construction-source emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for emissions of NOx and VOCs. However, proposed Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the proposed Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints and would reduce VOC emissions to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require that diesel-powered construction equipment used on site would have to meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, construction emissions associated with NOx would be below the SCAQMD’s threshold.

Overall, the proposed Project’s would be consistent with SCAG’s regional growth forecasts, and the proposed Project would not lead to increased regional air quality construction or operational emissions that would exceed thresholds with the inclusion of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Plans, Programs and Policies:

PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 46
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints for nonresidential interior and exterior surfaces and low VOC paint for parking lot surfaces. SuperCompliant low VOC paints have been reformulated to be more stringent than the regulatory VOC limits put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Alternatively, the applicant may utilize tilt-up concrete buildings that do not require the use of architectural coatings.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project Applicant, or the Applicant designee, shall ensure that all diesel-powered equipment is powered with CARB-certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the Project Applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Hemet that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the Project Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment is not/would not be available. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large fleets, defined by the CARB as, “A fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp.” In the event that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, Tier 4 interim equipment shall be required. In the event that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used.

All construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Impact Finding AQ-2: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (Draft EIR at p. 5.3-25).

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Table 5.3-6 of the Draft EIR provides the maximum daily emissions of criteria air pollutants from construction of the Project. As shown, NOx and VOC emissions resulting from Project construction would exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The majority of NOx emissions would occur from construction equipment exhaust from the excavation, grading, and soils export/import

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 47
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
needed for Project construction. The majority of VOC emissions would be generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction. However, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires the proposed Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints to reduce VOC emissions to less than significant levels and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires all diesel-powered equipment to meet CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards in order to reduce diesel exhaust construction emissions to a less than significant level, as shown on Draft EIR Table 5.3-7. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would include emissions from vehicles traveling to the Project site and from vehicles in the parking lots and loading areas. Area source emissions would occur from operation of a 238-horsepower diesel fire pump, which would be regulated by, and would require a permit from SCAQMD (PPP AQ-4). Additionally, four 175 horsepower natural gaspowered cargo handling equipment would be utilized in the truck court areas. As shown in Table

5.3-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s net operational activities would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutants and impacts would be less than significant.

Health Impact of Emissions
Most local agencies, including the City of Hemet, lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally-specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project. The Project’s regional emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds. Given the regional nature of such emissions and numerous unpredictable factors, an analysis that correlates health with regional emissions is not possible. It should also be noted that the EIR does identify health concerns related to NOx emissions. Table 5.3-1 of the Draft EIR includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects. Thus, the EIR’s analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making and impacts related to regional emissions would be less than significant.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. As listed previously.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. As listed previously.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: As listed previously.

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

Facts in Support of Findings: Per SCAQMD’s methodology, if an individual project would result in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants.

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 48
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
Emissions from construction would be below regional and localized thresholds for pollutants with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Emissions from Project operation would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. Therefore, construction and operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

As discussed in Impact AQ-3 of the Draft EIR, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction or operation activity.

Therefore, impacts on human health risks would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact AQ-4 of the Draft EIR, the Project would not expose surrounding uses to objectionable odors. Thus, there is no potential for odors from the Project to combine with odors from surrounding development Projects and expose nearby sensitive receptors to offensive odors.

Therefore, the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to odors.

B. Biological Resources
Impact Finding BIO-1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local, or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Wildlife service (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-17).

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

Facts in Support of Findings. The Project site is comprised of two types of vegetation communities and land covers: agricultural fields and developed/disturbed. Neither vegetation community is considered sensitive pursuant to local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.

Special-Status Plants
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, Many-stemmed dudleya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, and Wright’s trichocoronis. No special-status plants were detected on the Project site during the field survey conducted on July 8, 2022, and no special-status plant species are expected to occur on the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. As a result, Project development and operation would not result in a substantial adverse effect either directly or indirectly, or through habitat modification, on any plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, no impact would result from Project development and operation.

Special-Status Animal Species
No animal species listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate were detected on the site during the reconnaissance surveys. However, the Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Additional survey area for burrowing owls. The focused surveys found that the Project site provides suitable burrows/nesting opportunities for the burrowing owl species. Due to the fact that burrowing owl were observed within the 500-foot buffer area and since the Project site is located in the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, the Project would include Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a pre-construction burrowing

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 49
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
owl survey to be performed no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to ensure that no owls have colonized the Project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any animal species identified as a Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species in local or regional plans, policies, regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A pre-construction/ clearance burrowing owl survey shall be performed no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbance activity to determine presence/absence of the species. A qualified biologist shall survey the Project site and a buffer zone, 500-feet outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow shall be flagged, and a 160-foot diameter buffer shall be established during nonbreeding season or a 250-foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. If burrows onsite are unoccupied, construction may proceed.

If the site survey determines the presence of burrowing owl, mitigation in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDFW shall be implemented as follows:

If burrowing owls are identified as being resident on-site outside the breeding season (September 1 to February 14) they shall be relocated to other sites by a permitted biologist (permitted by CDFW), as allowed in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 2012).

If an active burrow is found during the breeding season, the burrow shall be treated as a nest site and temporary fencing shall be installed at a distance from the active burrow, to be determined by the biologist, to prevent disturbance during grading or construction. Installation and removal of the fencing shall be done with a biological monitor present.

Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation shall require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.

Impact Finding BIO-4: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-19).

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

Facts in Support of Findings. The Project site is relatively flat, and no hillside or drainages exist on the site. Areas of industrial, residential, and undeveloped land are located beyond the roadways adjacent to the site. No wildlife movement corridors were found to be present within or adjacent to the Project site. Development of the site would not result in impacts related to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor.

However, the Project site contains shrubs that can support nesting birds and raptors protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections § 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code during the nesting season. The Biological Assessment prepared for the Project site indicates that grading activities or vegetation removal during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15 might result in potential impacts to nesting birds (Hernandez, 2024). Therefore, if vegetation is required to be removed during nesting bird season, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to require a nesting bird survey to be conducted within three days prior to initiating vegetation clearing. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 50
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
and the policies of the General Plan, impacts related to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Survey. Vegetation removal should occur outside of the nesting bird season (generally between February 1 and August 31). If vegetation removal is required during the nesting bird season, the applicant shall conduct take avoidance surveys for nesting birds prior to initiating vegetation removal/clearing. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist(s) within three days of vegetation removal. If active nests are observed, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate minimum disturbance buffers and other adaptive mitigation techniques (e.g., biological monitoring of active nests during construction-related activities, staggered schedules, etc.) to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided until the nest is no longer active. At a minimum, construction activities shall stay outside of a 200-foot buffer around the active nests. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist and Riverside County Environmental Programs Department verify that the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities may occur.

Impact Finding BIO-6: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural conservation community plan, or other approved, local, regional, or state conservation plan (Draft EIR at p. 5.4-20).

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

Facts in Support of Findings. The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP within the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan. The Project site is not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell group. Since the site is located within a designated area requiring surveys for burrowing owl, and consistent with the MSHCP requirements, focused surveys were conducted and concluded that burrowing owls do not currently exist on the Project site. However, a pair of burrowing owls were observed beyond the Project site within the surrounding 500-foot buffer area within Salt Creek Channel. As such, a 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of Project activities, as included in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential conflict with the MSHCP would be less than significant.

Regarding MSHCP Section 6.1.2, the Project area does not contain any drainage, riparian, or riverine features. In addition, none of the riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within the Project area. Due to the lack of suitable riparian habitat on the Project site, focused surveys for riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not warranted and were not conducted. The Project site is within the NEPSSA survey area for Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, Many-stemmed dudleya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, and Wright’s trichocoronis. Based on the habitat assessment and survey, no suitable habitat for these narrow endemic species occurs on the Project site. Thus, impacts related to MSHCP Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 would not occur.

The proposed Project is not located within or adjacent to a Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area or a Criteria Cell. As a result, the Project would not conflict with MSHCP Sections

6.1.4 or 6.1.1. Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to pay habitat conservation fees required pursuant to Municipal Code Section 58-98, included as PPP BIO-1. With payment of

7.A.

Newland Simpson Road Project CEQA Findings of Fact
City of Hemet 51
CEQA Findings of Fact
July 2025
fees pursuant to PPP BIO-1 and incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Project would not result in any conflicts with the MSHCP, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Plans, Programs, and Policies:

PPP BIO-1: MSHCP Fees. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, fees required pursuant to the Western Riverside MSHCP implemented under Hemet Municipal Code Section 58-98 shall be submitted to the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Western Riverside MSHCP requires a peracre local development impact and mitigation fee payment prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: As listed previously.

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

Facts in Support of Findings: None of the projects identified in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR are proposed adjacent to the Project site. However, there are multiple cumulative projects within the Hemet area, in the general vicinity of the Project which have the potential to impact biological resources in the area. Focused biological resource studies (Appendix E) have been conducted to assess potential impacts associated with development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not have significant impacts related to jurisdictional waters, wildlife movement, local ordinances or regulations protecting biological resources, habitat conservation plans, plant communities, and habitat fragmentation. In addition, although the proposed Project could have significant impacts to nesting birds, compliance with the below mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

All other cumulative projects in the City and County would be required to comply with applicable survey requirements pursuant to the City of Hemet, County of Riverside, and Western Riverside MSHCP. If necessary, cumulative projects would be required to provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources. Since all projects would be required to implement their respective mitigation measures, their contribution to impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would not combine with other projects to produce a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources. Thus, impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: As listed previously.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: As listed previously.

C. Cultural Resources
Impact Finding CUL-2: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section § 15064.5 (Draft EIR at p. 5.5-7).

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