Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hemet council rehears Simpson Road warehouse amid intense turnout; procedural votes leave council with no formal resolution but staff describe practical denial
Summary
After hours of testimony from dozens of residents and labor representatives, a re‑noticed de novo public hearing on an amended Simpson Road warehouse drew sharply divided public comment. The council performed procedural votes but did not adopt a three‑vote resolution either approving or denying the project; city staff reported that, under council rules, the practical outcome equated to denial but a formal resolution was not adopted.
Hemet’s City Council held a re‑noticed de novo public hearing on March 10 on the revised Simpson Road warehouse proposal — a single industrial building of 884,760 square feet — after the city reached a settlement that required a procedural reset and the voluntary recusal of two council members.
City attorney (reading a close‑session report) said the settlement was intended to avoid costly litigation and “was not an approval of the project,” but rather provided a fresh public hearing to ensure procedural fairness. Monnique Alanise Flair, the community development director, introduced the item and Jeremy Kraut, the project environmental reviewer, summarized the draft EIR and the changes made since the prior hearings: the revised proposal reduced the project to a single building and analyzed an agnostic tenant type typical of logistics and distribution operations.
Kraut told council the EIR analyzed typical impacts for a project of this size and found several significant, unavoidable impacts (noise increases on nearby Warren Road, vehicle‑miles traveled, greenhouse gases and loss of agricultural resources) while other impacts were mitigated to less‑than‑significant levels. He described community benefits included in the proposal: road improvements, a proposed two‑mile, 10‑year road maintenance commitment, funding for a regional trail, an art fund contribution and traffic‑signal work.
Developer Greg Lansing defended the project as a catalyst for jobs and infrastructure and offered additional commitments — including a suggested retail component in the tenant program, contributions to the city art fund and a 10‑year maintenance agreement for local roads. “We’ve got to really send the right message. Are we open for business or not?” he told the council during his presentation.
The public comment period drew an extended turnout: union representatives and construction workers urged approval for the jobs and union construction work; neighbors, homeowners’ associations and environmental advocates urged denial, citing truck traffic, road deterioration, air‑quality and public‑health risks, the loss of farmland and view‑scapes, and concerns about prior procedural handling (including the settlement and recusals). Residents also highlighted local examples they said undercut job promises from earlier warehouse approvals.
During council deliberations, members debated traffic modeling, the 10‑year maintenance commitment and the extent to which the EIR and proposed conditions addressed long‑term concerns. Multiple motions were offered. A motion to approve the project was proposed but not seconded. A motion to deny the project was made and seconded; council conducted a roll‑call style vote but did not achieve the three‑vote majority required to adopt a denying resolution. The city attorney explained that, without the three‑vote resolution, no formal resolution was entered on the record; staff described the practical effect as equivalent to a denial while noting no formal denying resolution was adopted.
City attorney: “The settlement was not an approval of the project,” and the purpose of the procedural reset was to protect the city and ensure all applicants and residents receive a fair hearing, he said during the meeting.
What this means: The re‑noticed hearing generated substantial new public record and a strong showing for and against the project. Council did not adopt a formal resolution approving the project; it also did not adopt the prepared resolution formally denying it (the vote fell short of the three‑vote threshold required for resolutions), and staff characterized the outcome as functionally a denial pending any future motions or appeals. The city will publish the official minutes and any formal votes in the council record.
Provenance: Staff introduced the item and the environmental review (SEG 1511–1560); Jeremy Kraut summarized EIR findings (SEG 1550–1839); Greg Lansing presented the developer case (SEG 1846–2451); public testimony spanned dozens of speakers (SEG 2496–7289); applicant rebuttal and council motions and votes concluded the hearing (SEG 7230–7732).
