Agenda packet — Coachella City Council, June 21, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

City Hall Council Chamber
1515 Sixth Street, Coachella, California
(760) 398-3502  www.coachella.org
AGENDA

OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE

CITY OF COACHELLA

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2023
6:00 PM
If you would like to attend the meeting via zoom, here is the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84544257915?pwd=VTdHWitpYVdOUk1NQW8vZ1pqUm0zQT09 Or one tap mobile :

Us: +16699006833,, 84544257915#,,,,* 380084# US
Or telephone:

Us: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 845 4425 7915
Passcode: 380084
Spanish: El idioma español está disponible en Zoom seleccionado la opción en la parte de abajo de la pantalla Public comments may be received via email, telephonically, or via zoom with a limit of 250 words, or three minutes:

In real time:

If participating in real time via zoom or phone, during the public comment period, use the “raise hand” function on your computer, or when using a phone, participants can raise their hand by pressing *9 on the keypad.

In writing:

Written comments may be submitted to the commission electronically via email to [email protected].

Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. All written comments received will be forwarded to the commission and entered into the record.

IF YOU WISH, YOU MAY LEAVE A MESSAGE AT (760) 398-3102, EXTENSION 122, BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING.
1 CALL TO ORDER:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
“At this time the Commission may announce any items being pulled from the agenda or continued to another date or request the moving of an item on the agenda.”
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

1. Planning Commission Meeting - Minutes June 7, 2023.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS):
“The public may address the Commission on any item of interest to the public that is not on the agenda, but is within the subject matter jurisdiction thereof. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.” REPORTS AND REQUESTS:

NON-HEARING ITEMS:

PUBLIC HEARING CALENDAR (QUASI-JUDICIAL):

2. City of Coachella Objective Design Standards for Multi-family Residential and Mixed-Use development - Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 is a proposal to amend Coachella Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, adopting objective design standards for multi-family residential development to apply to G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo, DT-PV Transition, U-E Urban Employment and Neighborhood Commercial zones. (City-Initiated)

3. Coachella Warehouses – CUP 276, AR No. 16-18 (Modification) The proposed CUP 276, AR No. 16-18 (Modification) is to modify condition of approval No. 20 to clarify off-site improvements for the Coachella Warehouse project located on 14.61 acres at 84-851 Avenue 48.

Applicant: Verde Real Estate Holdings, LLC.

4. General Plan Amendment No. 23-03 and Environmental Assessment No. 23-03 “General Plan Addendum Project” Establishment of General Plan land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the City of Coachella General Plan Planning Area in the certified 2015 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but for which no General Plan land use designation was identified. The three areas include: (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) 2 to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area). (Applicant: City-Initiated)

5. Airport Business Park Change of Zone, CZ 20-01, from MH to MS and CG; Tentative Parcel Map 37921; CUP 324 – to allow commercial cannabis uses; CUP 325 to allow drive through restaurant; CUP 326 to allow service station and mini-mart; and AR 20-04 to approve site design, architecture and signage (billboard). The project includes 629,000± square feet of industrial and commercial square footage in multiple buildings, as well as a future Imperial Irrigation District (IID) substation. The site is located at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and SR 86 (APN# APN 763-330-013, 763-330-018, 763-330-029). (Recommendation to Table Item)
INFORMATIONAL:

6. Director’s Development Update

7. Development Services Tentative Future Agenda
ADJOURNMENT:

Complete Agenda Packets are available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office at 53-462 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, and on the City’s website www.coachella.org.

THIS MEETING IS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 3 Council Chambers, Hearing Room
1515 6th Street, Coachella, California
(760) 398-3502  www.coachella.org
AGENDA
DE UNA REUNIÓN ESPECIAL DE
LA
COMISIÓN DE PLANIFICACIÓN

PLANNING COMMISSION
21 de Junio, 2023
6:00 PM
Si desea asistir a la reunión a través de zoom, aquí está el enlace:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84544257915?pwd=VTdHWitpYVdOUk1NQW8vZ1pqUm0zQT09 O one tap mobile:

Us: +16699006833,, 84544257915#,,,,* 380084# US
O teléfono:

Us: +1 669 900 6833
ID del webinar: 845 4425 7915
Código de acceso: 380084
Español: El idioma español está disponible en Zoom seleccionado la opción en la parte de abajo de la pantalla Los comentarios públicos se pueden recibir por correo electrónico, por teléfono o por zoom con un límite de 250 palabras o tres minutos:

En vivo:

Si participa en vivo a través de zoom o teléfono, durante el período de comentarios públicos, use la función "levantar la mano" en su computadora, o cuando use un teléfono, los participantes pueden levantar la mano presionando *9 en el teclado.

Por escrito:

Los comentarios escritos pueden enviarse a la comisión electrónicamente por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Se requiere la transmisión antes del inicio de la reunión. Todos los comentarios escritos recibidos serán enviados a la comisión e ingresados en el registro.

SI LO DESEA, PUEDE DEJAR UN MENSAJE EN EL (760) 398-3102, EXTENSIÓN 122, ANTES DE LAS 4:00 P.M. DEL DÍA DE LA REUNIÓ
4 LLAMADO AL ORDEN:

JURAMENTO A LA BANDERA:

PASE DE LISTA:

ORDEN DEL DÍA ESPECIAL
APROBACIÓN DE LA AGENDA:
“En este momento, la Comisión puede anunciar cualquier punto que está siendo retirado de la agenda o continuado a otra fecha o solicitar el traslado de un punto de la agenda”.

APROBACION DE LAS ACTAS:

1. Borrador de las Actas de la Comisión de Planificación – 7 de Junio, 2023.

COMUNICACIONES ESCRITAS:

COMENTARIOS DEL PÚBLICO (PUNTOS QUE NO ESTÁN EN LA AGENDA):
“El público puede dirigirse a la Comisión sobre cualquier tema de interés para el público que no esté en la agenda, pero que esté dentro de la jurisdicción de la materia de la misma. Por favor limite sus comentarios a tres (3) minutos”.

INFORMES Y SOLICITUDES:

PUNTOS QUE NO SON DE AUDIENCIA:

CALENDARIO DE AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICAS (CUASI-JUDICIAL):

2. Normas objetivas de diseño - Modificación de la ordenanza de zonificación (ZOA) No. 22-04 Adopción de normas objetivas de diseño para el desarrollo residencial multifamiliar. (Iniciado por la Ciudad) (Pérez) (Prórroga del 7 de junio de 2023)

3. Modificación a una condición de aprobación para el Permiso de Uso Condicional (CUP #276) y Revisión Arquitectónica (AR #16-18) para el Proyecto de Cultivo y Procesamiento de las Bodegas Coachella.

En aproximadamente 14.61 acres localizados en 84-851 Avenue 48, en Coachella, California (APN 603-232-021, -022, & -024, como se muestra en el mapa abajo). El proyecto aprobado incluye un plan de desarrollo para el cultivo de marihuana y complejo de procesamiento con estacionamiento común, paisajismo y cercos de seguridad, que se ubicará en 14.61 acres de tierra en la zona M-W (Wrecking Yard) situado en la esquina suroeste de la Avenida 48 y Harrison Street. El Proyecto está aprobado para veinte edificios industriales que varían en tamaño de 4,000 a 16,000 pies cuadrados, (totalizando 256,200 pies cuadrados) adecuados para usos industriales/bodegas, incluyendo los usos de cultivo y procesamiento que son el tema del Permiso de Uso Condicional.

4. Enmienda Nº 23-03 al Plan General y Evaluación medioambiental Nº 23-03 para identificar las designaciones de uso de la tierra del Plan General de la Ciudad de Coachella para tres áreas que se evaluaron como parte del Área de Planificación del Plan General de la Ciudad de 5 Coachella en el Informe de Impacto Ambiental (EIR) del Programa 2015 certificado, pero para las cuales no se identificó ninguna designación de uso de la tierra del Plan General. Las tres áreas incluyen: (1) el área generalmente delimitada por Dillon Road al oeste, Fargo Canyon al norte, los límites de la parcela al este y East Side Dike al sureste (Área Norte del Proyecto); (2) el área generalmente delimitada por Jackson Street al oeste, aproximadamente 0.25 millas al norte de la 51ª Avenida por el norte, la calle Calhoun por el este y la 52ª Avenida por el sur (Área de Proyecto Oeste); y (3) el área generalmente limitada por la Ruta Estatal 86 (SR-86) por el oeste, la Avenida 60 por el norte, la calle Lincoln por el este y la 62ª Avenida por el sur (Área de Proyecto Sur).

5. Parque empresarial del aeropuerto de Coachella
Hagen Co., LLC, propone desarrollar el Parque de Negocios del Aeropuerto de Coachella, un desarrollo de parque de negocios de uso mixto que incluye espacio de almacén, usos comerciales relacionados con el cannabis, pequeñas empresas, auto almacenamiento y almacenamiento de vehículos, un restaurante drive thru (servicio por ventanilla) y estación de servicio /mini mercado relacionado con usos de la tierra, y una subestación eléctrica para el Distrito de Riego Imperial con un total de áreas de construcción de 624,150 pies cuadrados ubicados en la esquina noroeste de la intersección de la ruta estatal 86 (SR-86) y Airport Boulevard en la Ciudad de Coachella. (Continuación del 18 de mayo de 2023) INFORMATIVO:

Development Services Tentative Future Agenda
SE SUSPENDE LA SESIÓN:

ESTA REUNIÓN ES ACCESIBLE PARA PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDA

Los paquetes completos de la agenda están disponibles para inspección pública en el Departamento de Servicios de Desarrollo en 53-990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, y en el sitio web de la ciudad www.coachella.org.
6 7
Council Chambers, Hearing Room
1515 6th Street, Coachella, California
(760) 398-3502  www.coachella.org

MINUTES

OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE

CITY OF COACHELLA

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 2023
6:00 PM
PURSUANT ASSEMBLY BILL 361, ALONG WITH THE GOVERNOR’S STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATION ISSUED ON MARCH 4, 2020, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONDUCTED VIA TELECONFERENCE.

If you would like to attend the meeting via zoom, here is the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84544257915?pwd=VTdHWitpYVdOUk1NQW8vZ1pqUm0zQT09 Or one tap mobile :

Us: +16699006833,, 84544257915#,,,,* 380084# US
Or telephone:

Us: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 845 4425 7915
Passcode: 380084
Public comments may be received via email, telephonically, or via zoom with a limit of 250 words, or three minutes:

In real time:

In writing:

Written comments may be submitted to the commission electronically via email to [email protected]. Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. All written comments received will be forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. 8 Item 1.

Minutes Planning Commission June 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

IF YOU WISH, YOU MAY LEAVE A MESSAGE AT (760) 398-3102, EXTENSION 122, BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

CALL TO ORDER: 6:02 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Vice Chair Hernandez
ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Arvizu
Staff Present: *Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director. *Eva Lara, Planning Technician.
*Jason Stevens, Information Technology Manager.
*Jesus Medina, Information Technology Technician.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
“At this time the Commission may announce any items being pulled from the agenda or continued to another date or request the moving of an item on the agenda.”

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MURILLO TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: None.

ABSENT: Commissioner Arvizu.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

1. Draft Planning Commission Minutes – May 17, 2023.

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: None.

ABSENT: Commissioner Arvizu.
9 Item 1.

Minutes Planning Commission June 7, 2023

Page 3 ends

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

None.

NON-HEARING ITEMS:

None.

PUBLIC HEARING CALENDAR (QUASI-JUDICIAL):

2. Monarca Salon Studio
Conditional Use Permit No. 365 to allow a salon studio at a 5,460 sq. ft. existing commercial building located at 84090 Avenue 50 in the C-G (General Commercial) zone. Humberto Cortez (Applicant) Eva Lara, Planning Technician, narrated a power point presentation for the item. A copy of the presentation is on file in the Planning Division.

Public Hearing Opened at 6:29 pm by Chair Gonzalez.

Humberto Cortez, Applicant and building owner, made himself available for questions and provided comments.

Public Hearing Closed at 6:38 pm by Chair Gonzalez.

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 365 AND MODIFIED WITH ADDITION OF TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS FOLLOWS:

1. The applicant shall install block wall fencing along the northeast portion of the commercial center specifically directly behind the two buildings owned by the applicant. Block wall fencing to be completed one year (365 days) after the grand opening of the business.

2. Landscape required to include ¾” gravel around the landscape mediums and areas owned by the applicant.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: None.
10 Item 1.

Minutes Planning Commission June 7, 2023

Page 4 ends

ABSENT: Commissioner Arvizu.

3. Objective Design Standards for Multi-family Residential Development Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 - Recommend approval of objective design standards for multifamily residential development.

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE-CHAIR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ TO APPROVE THE CONTINUATION OF ITEM NUMBER THREE (3) TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 21, 2023.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: None.

ABSENT: Commissioner Arvizu.

4. City of Coachella Zoning Consistency Update - General Plan Amendment No. 23-03, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-03, and Change of Zone No. 23-01 includes an update of the Official Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the Coachella General Plan (City-Initiated - Continued from May 17, 2023)
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director, narrated a power point presentation for the item. A copy of the presentation is on file in the Planning Division.

Simran Malhotra, Principal at Raimi + Associates, narrated a power point presentation for the item. A copy of the presentation is on file in the Planning Division.

Public Hearing Opened at 7:27 pm by Chair Gonzalez.

Luis Lopez, made comments regarding the three parcels area on the West side of Van Buren Blvd. to consider the Zone area to be General Neighborhood designation instead of the proposed Neighborhood Center zone.

David and Paula Turner, made comments regarding their property just South of Avenue 50 on five (5) Acres to consider allowing the existing uses that are there now and until this develops in the future. Mr. Turner read a letter on behalf of the operator of Statewide Towing on southwest corner of Peter Rabbit and Avenue 50 requesting to allow towing uses so they can continue their business at the site.

Luis Lopez, made comments regarding the Santa Rosa Park LLC, 38 Acres on the Southeast corner of Tyler and Avenue 54 to maintain the Heavy Industrial District land used designation rather than Urban Employment Zone recommended by staff for consistency with the Urban Employment General Plan land use designation. The client wants to go on the record as being opposed to the change from Heavy Industrial Zoning to Urban Employment Zoning since he has a pending application.

Public Hearing Re-Opened at 7:54 pm by Chair Gonzalez.
11 Item 1.

Minutes Planning Commission June 7, 2023

Page 5 ends

Javier Solis, Jerry Jimenez and Luis Alvarado, property owners of lots on Van Buren and Avenue 48, provided comments regarding the change of Zone, in properties zoned in that area.

Public comments Closed at 8:56 pm by Chair Gonzalez

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HERNANDEZ

TO FIND AND DETERMINE THAT ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 AND APPROVE RESOLUTION PC2023-11 AND PC2023-12 SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS THAT INCLUDE RECOMMENDING:

1. Maintaining existing Downtown Center General Plan land use in the triangle bounded by Cesar Chavez Street to the West, First Street to the South, and Grapefruit Boulevard to the East.

2. Approval of clean up change of zoning to Urban Employment District for consistent Urban Employment General Plan land use areas East of Tyler Street to the North and South of Avenue 54.

3. Clean up change related to split zoning of General Neighborhood and Neighborhood Center for APN 612-250-007 for consistency with the General Plan land use map.

4. Reduction of setback in Chapter 17.14 G-N General Neighborhood Zone for multifamily types to 10 feet (from 15’) for alignment with Draft Objective Design Standards..

5. Allow day care uses in Urban Neighborhood (U-N) and Urban Employment (U-E) Zones.

6. Add following language to 17.16.020.C Conditional Uses for Urban Employment Zone:

Light Industrial uses as permitted in the M-S (Manufacturing Service) Zone, and as stand-alone uses operating indoors. Such uses in existence and permitted at the time of adoption of this code amendment shall be permitted to continue as a permitted use without obtaining a conditional use permit.

7. Allow towing and impounding for 1% of area of Urban Employment Zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit

8. Limit RV and Mini-Storage to 10% of the area of the Heavy Industrial (M-H), Manufacturing Service (M-S) and Wrecking Yard (M-W) zone.

9. Modify General Plan Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map for APN 612-250-010, -011, and -012 as General Neighborhood General Plan land use and General Neighborhood Zoning.

10. Staff draft visual rendering of the objective design standards for single family residential development.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Murillo, Commissioner Ramirez, Alternate Commissioner Fonseca, Vice Chair Hernandez, Chair Gonzalez.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: None.

ABSENT: Commissioner Arvizu.

INFORMATIONAL:

Development Services Future Agenda reviewed by Director Perez Director Perez stated that the General Plan land use maps for General Plan planning areas will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 21, 2023 and that a community outreach meeting would be held on June 20, 2023 at 6 P.M. at 51270 Jackson Street, Coachella regarding proposed addition of area bounded by Avenue 52, Jackson Street, and Calhoun Street into the City of Coachella sphere of influence. 12 Item 1.

Minutes Planning Commission June 7, 2023

Page 6 ends

ADJOURNMENT: 8:57 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted by,
________________________
Gabriel Perez
Planning Commission Secretary
Complete Agenda Packets are available for public inspection in the Development Services Department at 53-990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, and on the City’s website www.coachella.org.

THIS MEETING IS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 13 Item 1.

STAFF REPORT
6/21/2023
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: City of Coachella Objective Design Standards for Multi-family Residential and Mixed-Use development - Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 is a proposal to amend Coachella Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, adopting objective design standards for multi-family residential development to apply to G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo, DT-PV Transition, U-E Urban Employment and Neighborhood Commercial zones.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Find and determine that that Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 16061(b)(3);

2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-16 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 amending Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning) to require objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use developments.

BACKGROUND:

The State of California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330 to address the State housing crisis and reduce barriers to housing production. The laws require cities to review new multi-family residential development administratively in compliance with objective design standards.

Objective design standards are considered objective if they are measurable and verifiable and involve no subjective judgement by a City official.

Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was first passed as California state law in 1982 identifying a lack of housing as a statewide problem and allows the State to limit local governments from denying, reducing density of, or make infeasible housing development project, emergency shelters or farmworker housing that are consistent with a city’s objective development standards then the project approval authority must approve the application and issue permits within 90 to 180 days. 14 Item 2.

Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill 35 passed as California state law in 2017 to increase housing supply and allows developers of affordable multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects to submit an application under a streamlined ministerial review process for cities that have not met their share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Projects pursuing streamlined review under SB 35 must include:
 10 percent of units as affordable to lower-income households making at or below 80 percent of the Average Median Income.
 Project sites zoned for residential use, mixed-use development or have a general plan designation that allows for residential use or a mixed-use development.

If the development meets all state criteria then the project must be approved in 90 days for development with less than 150 units and 180 days for development with more than 150 units.

Only objective design standards may be applied in the design review of SB 35 eligible projects.

Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act, was effective January 2, 2020 and sunsets January 1, 2025 with the intent of increasing production of housing and further limiting the ability of cities to apply regulations that limit housing production. SB 330 applies to residential projects and mixed-use projects with two-thirds square footage for residential units. SB 330 limits the ability of cities to:

 Change the land use designation or zoning of sites that reduces capacity of housing units below what was allowed under the land use designation as of January 1, 2018, except with a concurrent increase capacity for housing units in land use designation or zoning of sites elsewhere.
 Adopt a moratorium on housing development.
 Apply subjective design standards in the design review of residential development.

The City of Coachella has not adopted objective design standards and there are only residential design guidelines in the Pueblo Viejo Implementation Strategy Plan and Single Family Residential design guidelines that are not considered standards and many of the guidelines would be considered objective in nature. In order to develop objective design standards to apply to new residential development, the City of Coachella staff submitted a proposal for the development of Objective Design Standards to SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Program Housing and Sustainable Development Call for Applications and was awarded along with the cities of Grand Terrace, Newport Beach, and Westminster in 2021. The tasks under the program include study sessions, comprehensive and user-friendly housing development applications, online interactive calculator, objective development standards toolkit, objective development standards toolkit fact sheet, public outreach, and project webpage, project branding, presentation to deliberative body, and final report. Crandall Arambula is the consulting firm awarded the RFP for SCAG’s Objective Development Standards Bundle and they worked with City staff in the development of the draft objective development standards for multi-family residential development as presented in this staff report.
15 Item 2.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The draft objective development standards presented in this report would apply citywide to multifamily residential development and mixed-use development. The draft Ordinance would amend the City of Coachella Municipal Code (C.M.C.), Title 17, Zoning, and would be consistent with the development standards identified in the G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo, DT-PV Transition, U-E Urban Employment and Neighborhood Commercial zones. The City Council is scheduled to consider revised zoning and development standards under the Zoning Consistency Update that would adopt the G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo, DT-PV Transition, and U-E Urban Employment zones at their regular City Council meeting on June 21, 2023.

The draft objective design standards are organized into site planning and building design standards for multi-family housing. Figures are includes in the design standards to identify visually how building form and site design are to be implemented. The Multi-family Site Planning Development and Design Standards are intended to ensure minimum standards for aesthetics, walkability, and safety for a multi-family project’s site design that includes:
 Public Realm Standards. These standards apply to street rights-of-way and any necessary easement and include a parkway zone, sidewalk zone, and transition area zone. These standards define the function and character of the perimeter right-of-way areas and are organized according to three street types. (Street Type A – Narrower streets with lower traffic volumes of 15,000 average daily trips, Street B – Wider streets with higher traffic volumes of more than 15,000 average daily trips, Street Type C – private streets less than 5,000 average daily trips).
 Public Realm Transition Standards. These standards establish requirements for required building setback behind the public realm line along Street Type A and B.  Site Landscaping Standards. These standards require drought tolerant landscaping and minimum common area landscaping standards.
 Site Outdoor Illumination Standards. These standards establish minimum illumination requirements to ensure nighttime safety for residents and other users.  Site and Public Realm Utilities Standards. These standards are intended to ensure utilities do not detract from visual quality of the public realm or building facades.  Site Freestanding Walls, Fences, and Gates Standards
 Site Solid Waste Container Enclosure Standards. These standards are intended to ensure garbage areas are properly located and screened from view of the public realm.

The Multi-family Building Design Standards are intended to ensure minimum design standards that ensure quality in the form and character of the building environment which includes:
 Building Modulation These standards establish minimum design standards for the form and character of proposed building that includes: horizontal and vertical modulation, roof form and materials, façade color, façade materials, and fenestration.  Residential entry standards. These standards apply to first floor residential entries to encourage street-oriented pedestrian activity that includes both lobby entries and individual 16 Item 2.
residential unit entries. A minimum of 5 feet is required behind the public realm line and the first floor entrances.
 First floor transparency standards. These standards are intended to ensure engagement with the public realm and providing transparency between the pedestrian realm and first floor uses.

Other Considerations
Staff reviewed the objective design standards in other cities and observed that standards were established for site and building design that includes:
 Design of faux shutters
 Regulations for treatment and type of roof tile (example: clay, boosted design)  Smooth stucco finishing
 Bull nose corners
 Divided lite windows for Spanish style architecture
 Exposed rafter tails
 Cornice trim design
 Electric charging facility design and placement
 Regulation of architectural types
The Planning Commission could consider other site and building design standards that are not identified in the draft Objective Design Standards.

Public Review and Comments
The draft Objective Design Standards were published on the City website beginning May 8, 2023.

The City of Coachella with Crandall Arambulla hosted a community open house at the Coachella Library on Monday, May 15, 2023 and a stakeholder meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 to share information about the draft Objective Design Standards. Interpretation services were available in Spanish for the outreach meetings. The comment letters received by Planning staff are listed in Attachment 2.

General Plan Consistency
The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that it promotes the public health, safety and welfare by imposing objective design standards for the public realm, site and building design. The table below summarizes how the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
17 Item 2.

Table 1 – General Plan Consistency
Policies and Objectives Consistency Finding
Land Use and Community Character Policy
Implementation Action #1: Zoning
Ordinance Update - Establish minimum tree
planting requirements and guidelines for
different sub areas, development types, street
trees and parking lot landscaping to ensure the
City’s urban forest/tree canopy is extensive
and well maintained. These requirements
should also address drought tolerant and native
plants and landscaping to reduce overall water
usage.

The Objective Design Standards (ODS)
established standards for landscaping in the
public realm that ensures street trees are
planted a maximum 25 feet on-center and have
a minimum canopy radius of 15 feet and cover
a minimum of 20 percent of paved areas at
maturity.

Land Use and Community Character Policy
Implementation Action #2: Design
guidelines update. Update the City’s design
guidelines to encourage human-scale urban
design at the neighborhood-, block-, and
building-scale to promote walkability and
social interaction. Elaborate and expand upon
the contents of the Land Use + Community
Design and Mobility Elements. Guidelines
should specify how development along
existing and planned transit lines should
provide convenient, direct and safe
connections to nearby transit stops and
integrate transit stops into public space
designs.

The ODS establish design standards that
promote walkability and social interaction
with high quality public realm design that
ensures sufficient sufficient sidewalk width,
street furniture, and landscaping that ensures
shade and reduction in heat island effect.

Land Use and Community Character Policy

2.3 Urban Design and Identity. Recognize the
City can differentiate itself from other
Coachella Valley cities through urban design
practices such as the development of
complete neighborhoods, preservation of
agriculture and open space, pedestrianoriented design and sustainable development practices.

The ODS establishes design standards that
ensure quality architectural design for multifamily residential and mixed-use projects. The OSD also ensures quality public realm design
that encourages pedestrian activity.

Land Use and Community Character Policy

2.5 High quality construction and architecture.

Require high-quality and long-lasting
building materials on all new development
projects in the City. Encourage innovative
and quality architecture in the City with all
new public and private projects.

The ODS established building modulation,
fenestration, and architectural accent standards
that ensure quality architecture for multifamily residential and mixed-use projects. 18 Item 2.

Policies and Objectives Consistency Finding
Land Use and Community Character Policy

2.7 Climate-appropriate design. Require
architecture, building materials and landscape
design to respect and relate to the local climate,
topography, history, and building
practices.

The ODS requires that all landscaping for
multi-family residential and mixed-use
projects incorporate desert appropriate
landscaping.

Land Use and Community Character Policy

3.1 Physical plan. Facilitate the construction of
a built environment that supports a
healthy physical and social environment for
new and existing neighborhoods.

Land Use and Community Character Policy

3.2: Walkable streets. Regulate new
development to ensure new blocks encourage
walkability by maximizing connectivity and
route choice, create reasonable block
lengths to encourage more walking and
physical activity and improve the walkability
of existing neighborhood streets.

The ODS establishes physical design of the
public realm that is safe and aesthetically
pleasing that further encourages pedestrian
activity and quality social environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Planning Division completed an initial environmental assessment of the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Division completed an initial environmental assessment of the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the draft Objective Design Standards are exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and is not a "project" as defined by section 15378 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 15061(b)(3).

The Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in the Coachella General Plan 2035 and the Zoning Ordinance.

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Find and determine that that Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 16061(b)(3); Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-16 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 amending Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning) to require objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use developments.
2) Find and determine that that Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 19 Item 2.
15060(c)(2 and 3) and 16061(b)(3); Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-16 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04 amending Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning) to require objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use developments with amendments. 3) Recommend denial of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 22-04. 4) Continue this item and provide staff with direction.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S):

Staff recommends Alternative #1 as noted above.

Attachment:

1. Resolution No. PC2023-16, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 23-04 Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A.1 – Objective Design Standards Multi-family Residential Project Modifications to Title 17, Zoning Ordinance

2. Letters Received (2)

3. Presentation to the Planning Commission
20 Item 2.

RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 22-04 RECOMMENDING TO

THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO COACHELLA
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17, ZONING, TO ESTABLISH

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE

DESIGN OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. CITYINITIATED.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Coachella (“City”) by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City has the police power to regulate the use of land and property within the City in a manner designed to promote public convenience and general prosperity, as well as public health, welfare, and safety; and,
WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 35, went into effect January 1, 2018 and is intended to encourage the production of housing to address the California housing crisis, which streamlined and ministerial review process for eligible multi-family housing projects; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 330, went into effect January 1, 2020 and is intended to increase the production of housing and limit the ability of cities to apply regulations that limit housing production; and
WHEREAS, the State Laws referenced allow cities to regulate the design of multiple-family residential and mixed-use development with the adoption of objective design standards if they are measurable and verifiable and involve no subjective judgement by a City official.

WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance would amend Title 17 (Zoning) to implement the establish objective design standards that allow the City to regulate the design of multiple-family residential and mixed-use development as required under State Law.

WHEREAS, based on that analysis, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the draft Objective Design Standards are exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and is not a "project" as defined by section 15378 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in the Coachella General Plan 2035 and the Zoning Ordinance.

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project, as modified and the related environmental documents, at 21 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC 2023-16

Page 2 ends

which time during the hearing members of the public were given an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, after said public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Planning Commission of the City of Coachella, California, hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission, all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, and the findings made in the staff report and this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING COACHELLA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17, ZONING, TO ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

APPLICABLE TO THE DESIGN OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT,” which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” including Objective Design Standards Zoning Ordinance Amendments of Exhibit A.1.

SECTION 3. Findings. The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to the Coachella Municipal Code proposed by the above referenced ordinance are consistent with and implement the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan and exercise the City’s land use powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

The Planning Commission also finds that the proposed amendments to the Coachella Municipal Code would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that they will establish appropriate uses and development standards as envisioned by the General Plan 2023. Furthermore, the Objective Design Standards (ODS) are consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
 Land Use and Community Character Policy 2.3 Urban Design and Identity.

Recognize the City can differentiate itself from other Coachella Valley cities through urban design practices such as the development of complete neighborhoods, preservation of agriculture and open space, pedestrian-oriented design and sustainable development practices. The ODS establishes design standards that ensure quality architectural design for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects. The OSD also ensures quality public realm design that encourages pedestrian activity.  Land Use and Community Character Policy 2.5 High quality construction and architecture. Require high-quality and long-lasting building materials on all new 22 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC 2023-16

Page 3 ends

development projects in the City. Encourage innovative and quality architecture in the City with all new public and private projects. The ODS established building modulation, fenestration, and architectural accent standards that ensure quality architecture for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects.  Land Use and Community Character Policy 2.7 Climate-appropriate design.

Require architecture, building materials and landscape design to respect and relate to the local climate, topography, history, and building practices. The ODS requires that all landscaping for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects incorporate desert appropriate landscaping.
 Land Use and Community Character Policy 3.1 Physical plan. Facilitate the construction of a built environment that supports a healthy physical and social environment for new and existing neighborhoods. The ODS establishes physical design of the public realm that is safe and aesthetically pleasing that further encourages pedestrian activity and quality social environment.
 Land Use and Community Character Policy 3.2: Walkable streets. Regulate new development to ensure new blocks encourage walkability by maximizing connectivity and route choice, create reasonable block lengths to encourage more walking and physical activity and improve the walkability of existing neighborhood streets. The ODS establishes physical design of the public realm that is safe and aesthetically pleasing that further encourages pedestrian activity and quality social environment.

The Planning Commission also finds that the proposed amendments to the Coachella Municipal Code are internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.

SECTION 4. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that proposed based on that analysis, that the draft Objective Design Standards are exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and is not a "project" as defined by section 15378 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in the Coachella General Plan 2035 and the Zoning Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Certification. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the members of the City of Coachella Planning Commission on this 21st day of June, 2023.
__________________________
23 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC 2023-16

Page 4 ends

Ruben Gonzalez,
Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:
________________________________________
Gabriel Perez, Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
Carlos Campos, City Attorney
24 Item 2.

I, Gabriel Perez, Planning Secretary, City of Coachella, California, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 21st day of June, 2023, and was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Gabriel Perez
Planning Commission Secretary
25 Item 2.

ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
COACHELLA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17, ZONING, TO

ESTABLISH OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

APPLICABLE TO THE DESIGN OF MULTIPLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT. CITY-INITIATED (First Reading)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Coachella (“City”) by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City has the police power to regulate the use of land and property within the City in a manner designed to promote public convenience and general prosperity, as well as public health, welfare, and safety; and, WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 35, went into effect January 1, 2018 and is intended to encourage the production of housing to address the California housing crisis, which streamlined and ministerial review process for eligible multi-family housing projects; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 330, went into effect January 1, 2020 and is intended to increase the production of housing and limit the ability of cities to apply regulations that limit housing production; and
WHEREAS, the State Laws referenced allow cities to regulate the design of multiplefamily residential and mixed-use development with the adoption of objective design standards if they are measurable and verifiable and involve no subjective judgement by a City official.

WHEREAS, based on that analysis, the City Council finds that the Objective Design Standards are exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and is not a "project" as defined by section 15378 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in the Coachella General Plan 2035 and the Zoning Ordinance.

WHEREAS, on June 7, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project at which time during the hearing members of the public were given an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, after said public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Ordinance.
26 Item 2.

WHEREAS, on July _, 2023 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project at which time during the hearing members of the public were given an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and

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

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council of the City of Coachella, California, hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Amendment to Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, is hereby amended as identified in Objective Design Standards Exhibit A.1
SECTION 3. CEQA Analysis. The Planning Division prepared an environmental assessment for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment and based on that analysis the City Council finds that the Objective Design Standards are exempt from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity which will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment and is not a "project" as defined by section 15378 pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15060(c)(2 and 3) and 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance will not result in any increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in the Coachella General Plan 2035 and the Zoning Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Publication and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance to published or posted as required by law, which shall take full force and effect thirty (30) days from its adoption. 27 Item 2.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ______ of _____________, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Steven Hernandez, Mayor
City of Coachella
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Angela M. Zepeda, City Clerk
City of Coachella
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Carlos Campos, Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
28 Item 2.

Coachella Multi-Family
Objective Development Standards (ODS)
Final Draft
May 25, 2023
29 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 2

17.20.XXX Multifamily Site Planning Development
Standards and Design Standards
A. Applicability. The development and design standards provided in this subsection shall apply to G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, and applies to multifamily residential buildings in the DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo zone, DT-PV Transition zone, and the U-E Urban Employment, and Neighborhood Commercial Zone District. The following development and design standards shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the purpose of this Code of Ordinances and with the policies of the General Plan related to site design. The standards shall apply to all new multi-family residential building construction. Review of projects under this subsection is ministerial and shall be consistent with 17.72. Architectural Review procedures and requirements.

B. Public Realm Standards.

The public realm standards apply to street rights-of-way and any necessary easement.

The public realm standards define the function and character of the perimeter rights-ofway that provide pedestrian circulation, access, amenities and a buffer transition between roadways and multi-family buildings.

1. Street Types. The street type standards address the full range of roadway conditions where adjacent multifamily uses may occur citywide. The intent of the standards is to establish the minimum requirements for pedestrian and resident comfort, safety, and access while ensuring that all multifamily or mixed use development is economically viable. The standards consider the relationship between motor vehicle traffic volume, speed, and traffic lane geometry and provide the appropriate minimum width of the public realm that is necessary to create a livable and vibrant environment.

The standards provide three options with different public realm geometry between the curb and building façades in response to different Coachella existing or planned roadway conditions.
a. Street Type A. These streets generally are narrower and have lower traffic volumes less than 15,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Multi-family buildings on sites that front Urban Residential with Parking, Urban Street 2-Lane, and Urban Street 4-Lane typologies as designated in the Coachella General Plan Chapter 05 Mobility Element shall comply with these standards.
b. Street Type B. These streets generally are wider and have higher traffic volumes greater than 15,000 ADT. Multi-family buildings on sites that front Major Arterial, Primary Arterial, or Collector street typologies as designated in the Coachella General Plan Chapter 05 Mobility Element shall comply with these standards. c. Street Type C. These private street standards apply to sites that include internal site multi-modal access streets that have very low volumes less than 5,000 ADT. Multi-family sites that include private roadways shall comply with these standards.
30 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 3 Standard A B C
PKZ TAZ SWZ PKZ SWZ TALorem ipsum Z SRZ SWZ TAZ
Adjacent
Street
Classification
Private Street
Total Public
Realm Width
Public Realm
Zone Width 4 feet
20%
(min.)
area
60%
(min.)
area
20%
(min.)
area
50%
(min.)
area
50%
(max.)
area
80%
(max.)
area
10%
(min.)
area
90%
(max.)
area
80%
(max.)
area
6 feet 10 feet 6 feet 6 feet 4 feet
Landscaping
Paving 100%
area
100%
area
100%
area
100%
area
Walls and
Fences
Illumination
Utilities
Signs
Steet Furniture Permitted Prohibited Permitted Permitted Permitted
40%
(max.)
area
Permitted Permitted
Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Prohibited Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited Prohibited
Prohibited Prohibited
Permitted
Permitted
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Parking
15’ (minimum)20’ (minimum)34’ (minimum)
24-32 feet 5’
(minimum)
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
(42” max.
height)
Permitted
Prohibited
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Permitted
(1 side, 8’
additional
width reuired)
(3’ max.
height)
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
Permitted
Prohibited
(below grade
permitted)
(42” max.
height)
4’
(minimum)
Collector, Suburban Residential and
Urban Residential with less than less
than 15,000 ADT; Cul-de-sac; frontage,
loop streets
Major Arterial or Primary Arterial
streets with more than 15,000 ADT
Catenary
Street
Lighting
Permitted
Street Type

2. Public Realm Summary Table. The summary Table X-X provides an at-a-glace summary of all street types and standards that apply. Complete description of the standards intent, setback, and zones for each are provided on the following pages. 31 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 4

3. Street Type A Standards.
a. Public Realm Setback. All new multi-family development on sites that front Urban Residential with Parking, Urban Street 2-Lane, and Urban Street 4-Lane shall comply with a 15-foot minimum first floor setback measured from the backof-curb, to the public realm-line on public streets. No first floor building façade shall be located beyond the public realm-line as specified in Figure 17.20.XXX.1.

FIGURE 17.20.XXX.1

STREET TYPE A PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS
Public Easement
Required width.

No variation.

Public realm line
Development TAZ PKZ Street Site SWZ
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Development TAZ PKZ Street Site SWZ
5’ Back of Curb
(min.)
6’ 4’
15’
(min.)
5’ Back of Curb
(min.)
6’ 4’
15’
(min.)
Planting beds:
12 feet length
STREET
(minimum)
PKZ: 20 percent
landscaping
(minimum)
Planting beds:
3 feet width
(minimum)
PKZ: 80 percent
paving with street furniture
(maximum)
PKZ: Light poles spaced
at 100 feet on-center
(maximum)
15 feet (min.)
tree canopy radius
TAZ:

Paving or
landscaping
15 feet (min.)
tree canopy radius Right-of way line
Public Easement
Right-of-way line
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Public Realm line
32 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 5 i. Public easement— a 5-foot public realm easement shall be provided. ii. Structural exemptions— 1-foot wide (maximum) building at-grade projections, columns, posts, or pilasters are permitted in the Transition Area Zone (TAZ) required public realm easement. A minimum of 4-foot width between the building structure and the Sidewalk Zone (SWZ) shall be provided.
iii. Weather protection— awnings and canopies that extend a maximum of 5 feet over the public realm are permitted. A minimum vertical clearance of 8 feet measured from the public realm finished grade to the bottom of the awning or canopy structural components shall be provided.

4. Street Type A Public Realm Zones. The intent of the multi-family public realm standards is to foster a safe, direct, and comfortable pedestrian access to first floor residential entries, internal driveways, common spaces, and paseos and encourage first floor street-oriented residential activity and visibility. Three distinct and contiguous sidewalk zones comprise the public realm.
a. Parkway Zone (PKZ). There shall be a required 4-foot PKZ width measured from the back-of-curb to the Sidewalk Zone (SWZ).
i. Landscaping— all PKZ shall be landscaped a minimum of 20 percent of the total multi-family development site frontage(s). All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per 8.44.220 California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements and according to City approved landscape plans. Turf grass shall be prohibited. A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desert-adaptable shrubs, succulents, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be permitted. Street trees shall be spaced a maximum of 25 feet on-center and have a minimum canopy radius of 15 feet and shall cover a minimum of 20 percent of paved areas at maturity.

Landscape beds and tree wells shall have a minimum dimension of 4 feet in width and 12 feet in length. Live plant materials shall constitute a minimum of 25 percent of all surface area coverage at installation.

A permanent underground irrigation system shall be installed. Spray irrigation shall be prohibited.
ii. Street furniture— benches, transit shelters, tables, chairs, trash receptacles, public art, bike racks are not required but shall be permitted. iii. Illumination— sidewalk light poles and fixtures are not required but shall be permitted.
iv. Paving— poured in place concrete, stone, concrete or brick unit pavers are permitted. A maximum of 80 percent paving of the PKZ shall be permitted.

Cast iron tree grates shall be permitted and shall be included in any paving calculation.
v. Utilities— transmission line poles, sidewalk and roadway light poles and fixtures, utility boxes and vaults, and traffic control devices, are permitted in the parkway zone. All applicable utility standards of Coachella Code Chapter 16.32 Design and Development Standards shall apply. vi. Signs— temporary or permanent roadway or wayfinding signs shall be permitted. Advertising or development identification signs shall be prohibited. All signs shall comply with Coachella Chapter 5.48 Outdoor Advertising Sign Standards and all applicable traffic federal and local sign standards, as specified in Figure 17.20.XXX.1.
33 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 6 b. Sidewalk Zone (SWZ). There shall be a required 6-foot SWZ width measured between the Parkway Zone to the Transition Area Zone.
i. Accessibility— The required SWZ width shall remain clear of all obstructions to maintain universal access. Steps and rough textured surface treatments are prohibited within the SWZ.
ii. Street furniture—permanent or temporary street furniture shall be prohibited.
iii. Paving— the SWZ shall consist of poured in place scored concrete or concrete, brick, or stone unit pavers. Stamped concrete is prohibited. iv. Landscaping— plant material in beds or pots shall be prohibited. Any landscape material planted in the TAZ or PKZ shall not project into the SWZ at a height less than 8 feet above finished SWZ grade.
v. Signs—temporary or permanent signs shall be prohibited. vi. Walls and fences—temporary or permanent fences or enclosures shall be prohibited.
vii. Illumination— sidewalk-oriented light poles and fixtures shall be prohibited. viii. Utilities— fire hydrants, transmission line poles, utility boxes, and traffic control devices shall be prohibited. Below grade utility lines and vaults shall be permitted.
c. Transition Area Zone (TAZ). There shall be a minimum 5-foot TAZ width measured from the SWZ to the public realm-line.
i. Landscaping— the TAZ shall be landscaped a minimum of 20 percent of the total site frontage(s). All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per 8.44.220 California MWELO requirements. Landscaping and trees shall comply with the 2022 Coachella Grapefruit Boulevard Standards (CGBS) Sections 5.106.12 through 5.106.12.3. A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desertadaptable shrubs, succulents, ground cover, and ornamental trees shall be permitted. No planting bed shall be less than 3 feet in width. Live plant materials shall constitute a minimum of 25 percent of all surface area coverage at installation. A permanent underground irrigation system shall be installed. Spray irrigation shall be prohibited.
ii. Street furniture— permanent or temporary seating shall be permitted in the TAZ.
iii. Paving— permitted paved surfaces shall consist of brick, concrete, or stone unit pavers, concrete banding, or scored or brushed concrete with integral color pigment that is complementary but distinguished from the SWZ paving.

Stamped concrete shall be prohibited. Steps that provide access to above grade front door entrances are permitted.
iv. Illumination— building wall washing uplighting and landscape accent light poles and fixtures less than 18 inches in height shall be permitted. Sidewalk light poles and fixtures are permitted.
v. Walls and fences— retaining or landscape planter concrete or masonry walls or wrought iron fences 42 inches or less in height are permitted. Walls and fences shall include a landscaped setback of a minimum 2 feet width from the SWZ.
vi. Utilities—ground or façade mounted utilities shall be screened. Below grade utility vaults or lines shall be permitted in the TAZ.
vii. Parking— below grade parking structures shall be permitted in the TAZ. 34 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 7

5. Street Type B Standards.
a. Public Realm Setback. All new development in multi-family sites that front Major Arterial, Primary Arterial, or Collector street shall comply with a 20-foot minimum first floor setback measured from the back-of-curb to the public realm-line on public streets. No first floor building façade shall be located beyond the public realm-line as specified in Figure 17.20.XXX.2.

Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
6’ 10’ Back of Curb
20’
(min.)
4’ Back of Curb
(min.)
6’ 10’
20’
(min.)
Public
Easement
Required width.

No variation.

Public realm line
4’
(min.)
Right-of-way line
STREET
Trees 25’ O.C. maximum
TAZ PKZ Street Development
Site SWZ
TAZ PKZ Street Development
Site SWZ
TAZ: Paving or
landscaping
Public realm line
Right-of-way line
15 feet (min.)
tree canopy radius
15 feet (min.)
tree canopy radius
PKZ: 60 percent
landscaping
(minimum)
PKZ: 40 percent
paving with street furniture
(maximum)
Public
Easement
PKZ: Light poles spaced
at 100 feet on-center
(maximum)
FIGURE 17.20.XXX.2

STREET TYPE B PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS
35 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 8 i. Public easement— a 10 foot easement shall be provided. ii. Structural exemptions— 1-foot wide building at-grade projections, columns, posts, or pilasters are permitted in the Transition Area Zone (TAZ) required public realm easement. A minimum of 3-foot width between the building structure and the Sidewalk Zone (SWZ) shall be provided. iii. Weather protection— awnings and canopies that extend a maximum of 5-feet over the public realm are permitted. A minimum vertical clearance of 8 feet measured from the public realm finished grade to the bottom of the awning or canopy structural components shall be provided.

6. Street Type B Public Realm Zones. The intent of the Street Type B public realm is to foster safe and comfortable pedestrian access to multi-family sites that front busier streets with traffic volumes greater than 15,000 ADT by providing a more robust landscaped buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk. Three distinct and contiguous sidewalk zones comprise the public realm.
a. Parkway Zone (PKZ). There shall be a required 10-foot parkway zone width measured from the back-of-curb to the SWZ.
i. Landscaping— the PKZ shall be landscaped a minimum of 60 percent of the total multi-family development site frontage(s). All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per 8.44.220 California MWELO requirements and according to City approved landscape plans. Turf grass shall be prohibited. A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desert-adaptable shrubs, succulents, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be permitted. Street trees shall be spaced a maximum of 25 feet on-center and have a minimum canopy radius of 15 feet at maturity. Landscape beds and tree wells shall have a minimum dimension of 4 feet in width and 12 feet in length. Live plant materials shall constitute a minimum of 25 percent of all surface area coverage at installation. A permanent underground irrigation system shall be installed. Spray irrigation shall be prohibited.
ii. Street furniture— benches, transit shelters, tables, chairs, trash receptacles, public art, bike racks shall be permitted.
iii. Illumination— sidewalk light poles and fixtures are permitted. iv. Paving— poured in place concrete, brick, concrete, or stone unit pavers are permitted. A maximum of 40 percent paving of the PKZ shall be permitted.

Cast iron tree grates shall be permitted and shall be included in any paving calculation.
v. Utilities— transmission line poles, sidewalk and roadway light poles and fixtures, utility boxes and vaults, and traffic control devices, are permitted in the parkway zone.
iv. Signs— temporary or permanent roadway or wayfinding signs shall be permitted. Advertising or development identification signs shall be prohibited.
b. Sidewalk Zone (SWZ). There shall be a required 6-foot sidewalk zone width measured between the Parkway Zone to the Transition Area Zone. There shall be no variation in location or width of the SWZ. Serpentine or curved sidewalk alignment is prohibited.
i. Accessibility— the required sidewalk zone width shall remain clear of all obstructions to maintain universal access. Steps are prohibited within the sidewalk zone.
ii. Paving— the SWZ shall consist of poured in place scored concrete or 36 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 9 concrete, brick, or stone unit pavers. Stamped concrete is prohibited. iii. Street furniture— Permanent or temporary street furniture shall be prohibited.
iv. Landscaping— plant material in beds or pots shall be prohibited. Any landscape material planted in the TAZ or PKZ shall not project into the SWZ at a height less than 8 feet above finished SWZ grade.
v. Signs—temporary or permanent signs shall be prohibited. vi. Walls and fences—temporary or permanent fences or enclosures shall be prohibited.
vii. Illumination— sidewalk-oriented light poles and fixtures shall be prohibited. viii. Utilities— fire hydrants, transmission line poles, utility boxes, and traffic control devices shall be prohibited. Below grade utility lines and vaults shall be permitted.
c. Transition Area Zone (TAZ). There shall be a minimum 4-foot Transition area Zone width measured from the Sidewalk Zone to the public realm-line. i. Landscaping— landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 50 percent of the total site frontage(s) excluding any frontage that includes an arcade.

All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per

8.44.220 California MWELO requirements Landscaping and trees shall comply with the 2022 Coachella Grapefruit Boulevard Standards (CGBS) Sections 5.106.12 through 5.106.12.3. A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desert-adaptable shrubs, succulents, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be permitted.

No planting bed shall be less than 3 feet in width. Live plant materials shall constitute a minimum of 25 percent of all surface area coverage at installation. A permanent underground irrigation system shall be installed.

Spray irrigation shall be prohibited.
ii. Street furniture— permanent or temporary seating shall be permitted in the TAZ.
iii. Paving— to increase the width of the SWZ, permitted paved surfaces shall consist of brick, concrete, or stone unit pavers, concrete banding, or scored or brushed concrete with integral color pigment that is complementary but distinguished from the SWZ paving. Stamped concrete shall be prohibited.

Steps that provide access to above grade front door entrances are permitted.
iv. Illumination— building wall washing uplighting and landscape accent light poles and fixtures less than 18 inches in height shall be permitted. Sidewalk light poles and fixtures are permitted.
v. Walls and fences— retaining or landscape planter concrete or masonry walls or wrought iron fences 72 inches or less in height are permitted. Walls and fences shall include a landscaped setback of a minimum 2 feet width from the SWZ.
vi. Utilities—ground or façade mounted utilities shall be screened. Below grade utility vaults or lines shall be permitted in the TAZ.
vii. Parking— below grade parking structures shall be permitted in the TAZ. 37 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 10

7. Street Type C Standards.
a. Private Street Standards. The intent of private street standards is to foster a low speed, multi-modal access where driving, walking and cycling space can be integrated. All new development sites that include private roadways shall comply with a 48-foot minimum right-of-way width measured between the fronting build-to lines. No portion of any building façade shall be located beyond the build-to line as specified in Figure 20.48.2XX.3.

Build to line
SRZ
10’
4’
min.

TAZ SWZ Development
Site
Development Site
Development Site
Development Site
Build-to line

TAZ SRZ
TAZ

SWZ TAZ
6’
min.
4’
min.

Public Realm
28’
48’
(minimum)
Build to line
Asphalt, stone,
concrete or brick
pavers
Permitted Paving
Required 10
percent (minimum)
landscaping
Permitted
Catanary Light
Required Bollards
Curbless or rolled
curb
10’
8’
min.
6’
min.

SWZ
20’ (min.)
Travel Lanes
Parking lane
(one side)
Roadway Public Realm
SWZ
FIGURE 17.20.XXX.3

STREET TYPE C STANDARDS
38 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 11 i. Public access— an access easement for walking and biking shall be provided for private property internal streets. Access shall be maintained 24 hours per day and all days of the year. No walking and biking ingress or egress from public streets shall be gated.
ii. Amenity— the streets shall be designed as a component of an integrated system of common open spaces and paseos of the site while providing essential auto and delivery access to access parking garages and first floor residential entries. Design of the streets shall be unified, consistently utilizing the same paving, landscaping, illumination, and street furniture elements of paseos and common open spaces.
iii. Speed limit— a maximum 15 mile per hour speed limit shall be required for all internal private streets. Speed humps, tabled intersections, or other Fire Department approved traffic calming measures shall be provided to ensure low speeds.

8. Street Type C Private Street Zones. Three integrated and blended street zone comprises the private streets.
a. Shared Roadway Zone (SRZ). Motor vehicle traffic shall be permitted to include either one-way or two-way traffic patterns. A 20 foot minimum width multimodal roadway shall be provided. i. Fire access— all roadways shall comply with fire apparatus access standards of the California Fire Code and the Riverside County Fire Department.
ii. Surface treatment— paving shall be asphalt, stone, brick or concrete unit pavers or poured in place concrete with integral color pigment. Stamped concrete shall be prohibited.
iii. Curb free — streets shall be integrated with the Pedestrian Refuge Zone.

Curbless or rolled curbs shall be permitted.
iv. Illumination— cantenary street lighting shall be permitted. Emergency and maintenance vehicle height clearances shall be maintained. v. Parking— one-sided parallel curbside parking (8 foot maximum width) in addition to the minimum 20 foot width with shall be permitted. Angled or head-in parking shall be prohibited.
b. Sidewalk Zone (SWZ). Two SWZ zones shall be provided. The zones are intended to provide a pedestrian-protected area free of motor vehicle traffic. A 6-foot width measured from the back-of-curb to the Transition area Zone shall be provided.
i. Universal accessibility— the zone shall include a 5-foot (minimum) wide clear width that is free of all obstructions to maintain American Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Steps or ramps are prohibited within the zone.
ii. Physical separation — cast iron or concrete bollards shall be provided to protect pedestrians from the shared street within a 1-foot zone from the back of the curb. Bollards shall be spaced a maximum of 10 feet on center. Traffic or wayfinding poles shall be permitted within this zone between the bollards.
iii. Paving— paving shall be brick or concrete unit pavers or poured in place concrete with integral color pigments. Concrete banding and scoring pattern shall differentiate the SWZ from the SRZ. Differentiated stone, 39 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 12 brick or concrete paving, differentiated concrete banding and scoring patterns shall be provided at parking garage and intersection conflict points.
iv. Street furniture— benches, tables, chairs, trash receptacles, and bike racks are prohibited in the zone.
v. Landscaping— shrubs, groundcover, and street trees are prohibited in the zone. Any landscaping planted in the adjacent Transition Area Zone shall not project into the SRZ at a height less than 8 feet above finished SRZ grade.
vi. Utilities— transmission line poles, utility boxes and vaults are prohibited in the zone.
c. Transition Area Zone (TAZ). There shall be a minimum 4-foot transition area zone width measured from the SWZ to the build-to line.
i. Landscaping— the TAZ shall be comprise of a minimum of 10 percent of the total building frontage(s). All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per 8.44.220 California MWELO requirements.

A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desert-adaptable shrubs, succulents, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be permitted. Landscape planting beds shall have a minimum width of 3 feet. Any landscape material shall not project into the SWZ or SRZ at a height less than 8 feet above finished SRZ grade. ii. Paving— stone, brick or concrete unit pavers or poured in place concrete with integral color pigments is permitted in the TAZ. Steps are permitted to above grade first floor entrances.
iii. Street furniture— permanent or temporary seating shall be permitted in the transition area zone.
iv. Walls— retaining walls or landscape planting walls less than 42 inches in height shall be permitted.
v. Utilities— ground or façade mounted utilities shall be screened. Below grade utility vaults or lines are permitted.
vi. Parking— auto parking along driveway aprons shall be prohibited. 40 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 13 C. Public Realm Transition Standards. The intent of the standards is to address all potential first floor residential or commercial building conditions and establish requirements for any required building setback behind the public realm line along Street Type A and Street Type B. The standards prescribe at-grade and above grade conditions for first floor uses and conditions for upper floor projections.

1. First Floor Transition Area Use. All multi-family or multi-family mixed use development fronting either Street Type A and Street Type B shall comply with the following standards for the use of any site frontage area between the building facade and the public realm line.
a. Motor Vehicle Parking and Service Access. Driveways shall be limited to the minimum width and length necessary to provide direct and efficient motor vehicle ingress to and egress from off-street parking, loading, or service parking spaces located behind a build-to-line. Ride-share drop-off and pick-up short-term parking spaces are permitted within the setback. b. Utilities. Public utilities vaults and transmission lines shall be fully screened or subterranean.
c. Residential Unit Private Space Enclosures. Patio walls that are 42 inches or less in height above the finished grade of the adjacent public realm are permitted for Street Type A frontages; patio walls that are 60 inches or less in height above the finished grade of the adjacent public realm are permitted along Street Type B frontages.
d. Steps, Stoops, or Terraces. Shall be prohibited along first floor commercial tenant storefront frontages. 30 inch (minimum ) and 48 inch (maximum) height terraces, steps and stoops are permitted for first floor residential units. Atgrade or above-grade individual residential entrances shall comply with all Multifamily Building Design Standards of this ordinance. e. Parking Garages. Subterranean parking garages, including below grade equipment, service, utility, and storage areas that extend to the property line are permitted.
f. Landscaping. Any area between the public realm line and the building shall be landscaped a minimum of 60 percent of the total multi-family building frontage where at-grade ground floor residential units are provided. All landscaping shall comply with the site landscaping standards of this ordinance. g. Exemptions. First floor residential units subject to California Building Code accessibility requirements shall all be exempt from the steps, stoops, or terrace standards and landscape standards. The landscape minimum area standards do not apply to building frontages where interior vertical circulation stairs and elevators; common areas, or lobbies occur.
41 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 14 Upper Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
First Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
Upper Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
Patio or
Stoop
Permitted
42”
72”
Development
Site Public Realm Street
Public Realm line
Public
Easement Right-of-way line
Right-of-way line
Permitted upper
floor facade at
public realm line
Permitted upper
floor balcony
projections
(5’ max.)
Public Realm line
First Floor at-grade
Required first floor setback
from the public realm line
Wall height (max.):
72” (Street Type B) or
42” (Street Type A)
5’
(min.)
First floor facade line
Lorem ipsum
FIGURE 17.20.2XX.4

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION STANDARDS

AT-GRADE FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USE SETBACK

2. At-Grade First Floor Residential Use. The intent of the standards is to provide adequate privacy separation between the first floor unit interior living space and the public realm. All buildings with a first floor residential units that are at-grade with the adjacent public realm shall comply with the following standards as specified in Figure 17.20.2XX.4
a. Public Realm Line Setback. A minimum 5-foot first floor setback from the public realm line shall be provided for residential units. b. Private First Floor Residential Use. Residential front door stoops or enclosed patios shall be permitted within the 5-foot minimum setback. c. Projections. Upper floors of multi-family buildings are permitted to project over any first floor setback to the public realm line. Upper floor residential balconies are permitted to project to the right-of-way (property line) or 5 feet, whichever is less.
42 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 15 30” (min.) to
48” (max.)
ealm line
ional setback required
rty line
Public Realm Street
Permitted upper
floor facade at
public realm line
Permitted upper
floor balcony
projections
(5’ max.)
Right-of-way line
First floor facade
permitted at
public realm line
Public Realm line
Public
Easement
No required first floor setback
from the public realm line
Right-of-way line
Public Realm line
Development Site
First Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
First Floor above-grade
Public realm adjacent grade
FIGURE 17.20.2XX.5

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION STANDARDS

ABOVE-GRADE FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USE

3. Above-Grade First Floor Residential Use. The intent of the standards is to provide a privacy grade separation between the first floor units and the public realm.

Buildings shall comply with all the above-grade standards as specified in Figure

17.20.2XX.5
a. Public Realm Line Zero Setback. Where residential units are constructed at the public realm line, the finished first floor shall be a minimum of 30 inches and a maximum of 48 inches above the adjacent public realm grade. b. Private First Floor Residential Outdoor Use. Where provided, first floor balconies shall be permitted to project a maximum of 18 inches beyond the public realm line. Terraces shall not project beyond the public realm line. c. Projections. Upper floors of multi-family buildings are permitted to project over any first floor setback to the public realm line. Upper floor residential balconies are permitted to project to the right-of-way (property line) or 5 feet, whichever is less.
43 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 16

4. At-Grade Commercial Use. The intent of the standards is to permit direct first floor access between first floor commercial uses and the public realm. All mixed use buildings with a at-grade first floor commercial use that are adjacent public realm shall comply with the following standards as specified in Figure 17.20.XX.6 FIGURE 17.20.2XX.6

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION STANDARDS

MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITH FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE
Public Realm Street
Upper Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
First Floor Commercial
Upper Floor
Multi-Family
Residential
Public Realm line
Public
Easement
No required first floor setback
from the public realm line
Right-of-way line
Right-of-way line
Permitted upper
floor facade at
public realm line
Permitted upper
floor balcony
projections
(5’ max.)
First floor facade
permitted at
public realm line
Public Realm line
Required first floor at-grade
Permitted awning and
canopy projections
(5’ max.)
Development
Site
a. Public Realm Setback. Mixed use multi-family development with a first floor commercial component setbacks shall not be required.
b. Projections. Upper floors of multi-family buildings are permitted to project over any first floor setback to the public realm line. Upper floor residential balconies and first floor or upper floor canopies or awnings are permitted to project to the right-of-way (property line) or 5 feet, whichever is less. 44 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 17 D. Site Landscaping Standards. Landscaping shall be provided to unify multiple buildings on development sites, enhance the enjoyment and beauty of public and private spaces, provide visual screening for existing adjacent uses, and aid in energy conservation by providing shade from the sun and shelter from the wind. The following standards shall apply to the landscape materials, placement, layout and installation for all multifamily zones, and mixed use zones where multi-family building occur. All landscaping shall comply with any other applicable landscaping requirements identified in Chapter 17.60 Development Standards.

1. Desert Appropriate Landscaping Standards. All landscaping shall be selected, installed, irrigated, and maintained per any applicable 8.44.220 Coachella Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance requirements and City approved landscape plans.
a. Landscape Design. A combination of decomposed granite mulching and drought tolerant native and desert-adaptable shrubs, succulents, groundcover, and ornamental trees shall be provided for all required landscaped areas. Turf grass installation shall be prohibited throughout with the exception of active recreation areas. Live plant materials shall constitute a minimum of 25 percent of all surface area coverage at installation.
b. Required irrigation. A permanent underground irrigation system shall be installed. Spray irrigation shall be permitted for recreation turf areas only.

2. Minimum Common Area Landscaping Standards. No less than 20 percent of the total required usable common open space for multifamily residential development shall be comprised of landscaped beds, planters, or pots. a Planters and Pots Requirements. Planters and pots shall have a minimum length, width, diameter, and depth of 36 inches.
b. Minimum Planting Bed Dimensions. Beds shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width and 12 feet in length.
c. Required Landscape Areas. Landscaping is required in the setback area for individual residential units on the ground floor, except for where a walkway, ramp, stoop, or stairs are directly adjacent to the public realm. Landscaping shall be of an appropriate height to screen the residential unit walls and stoops.
45 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 18 E. Site Outdoor Illumination Standards. Minimum illumination requirements of multifamily and mixed development sites and adjacent public realm shall be provided to ensure nighttime safety for residents and other users. Lighting shall be permitted to animate gathering areas and extend hours of the day that residents use sidewalks and common spaces. No lighting shall create any unnecessary nuisance for site residents and adjoining property occupants.

1. General Provisions. All exterior lighting shall be designed, located and installed in order to prevent over-lighting, energy waste, glare, light trespass and unintentional sky glow. Lighting shall be permitted to highlight building and landscape features, and provide Illumination for mixed use business operations. a. Luminaires and Poles. Multifamily residential sites and building façades shall comply with the following standards.
i. Sky glow limitations— all parking lot and common area light fixtures shall be fully shielded and dark sky rated.
ii. Maximum Illumination Impact— the extent of light coverage of all site light installations shall not exceed a 2-foot candle maximum illuminance impact on any fronting residential or commercial sites. iii. Energy efficiency— all non-essential exterior mixed use commercial and multi-family residential lighting shall be turned off after business hours and/or when not in use. All commercial lights shall be on a timer. iv. Security— sensor activated lights are to be used for security purpose lighting only. Security luminaires shall not be triggered by activity off the development site, including the fronting public realm.
v. Glare restrictions— awning or canopy lights shall be fully recessed or fully shielded so as to ensure that no light source is visible from or causes glare on the public realm or adjacent properties.
vi. Exceptions— luminaries and poles used for resident recreation area courts, pools, and play areas shall be exempt from the height and illumination restrictions provided all other provisions of this section are met and the light is used only while the recreation area is in use.

2. Site Open Space, Public Realm, Roadway, and Exterior Building Lighting. All parking lots, accessible common areas, and private residential open space area lighting shall comply with all location requirements identified in the public realm standards of this subsection and the following additional location, height and illumination standards as follows:
a. Public Realm and Development Site Common Area Lighting. Pedestrianoriented lighting shall have a maximum light pole and luminaire height of 15 feet. Sidewalk lighting shall have an average of 2-foot candles and a minimum of 1-foot candle and a maximum of 5-foot candles.
b. Landscape and Building Facade Accent Lighting. Glare-free direct accent light fixtures with an illumination ratio of less than 30:1 shall be permitted to highlight façade articulation, artwork, and landscape specimen plantings. c. Parking Lot, Private Roadway, and Driveway Lighting. Parking area lights shall be greater in number, lower in height, and lower in light level, as opposed to fewer in number, higher in height, and higher in light level. The light pole and luminaire height shall be no greater than 18 feet above the parking lot finished grade. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed an overall average 46 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 19 illumination of 1.5 foot-candles. Lighting shall have a minimum 1 foot candle and a maximum of 4 foot candles. Private roadway and driveway cantenary or pole mounted luminaires shall be LED, unless otherwise determined City of Coachella Public Works. Streetlights shall meet all City of Coachella Public Works illumination and standard specifications and procedures for installation height, number, and location.

F. Site and Public Realm Utilities Standards. Utilities required for the function and operation of any multi-family development shall be integrated into sites, facades, and roofs to ensure that they do not detract from the visual quality of a public realm or building facades, or pose health or safety hazards to residents, visitors, and employees.

All development shall comply with any utility service provider requirements for access, maintenance, and service; and any applicable Engineering Department standards and specifications for installation. For all multi-family and mixed use buildings and sites, the following standards shall be met.

1. Underground Utilities. New and existing utilities service connections including wires, cable, and pipelines and equipment shall be placed entirely below ground when located within a multi-family or mixed development site undergoing new development or redevelopment, and/or along the length of the front yard property line in the adjoining half-street, except when the following conditions are met:
a. Feasibility. Where under grounding of utilities within a site is not feasible due to utility or infrastructure conflicts, topographic conditions, or site limitations.

The Engineering Department Director shall have the authority to waive, limit, or modify the requirement for such improvements.
b. Exemptions. Fire hydrants and Fire Department connections as required by the International Fire Code, and any traffic control devices as required by the Engineering Department shall be exempted from all requirements of this ordinance.

2. Site At-Grade Utilities. Utility facilities that cannot feasibly be installed underground shall be located and screened with landscaping or walls consistent with the standards of this ordinance to minimize their impact. a. Required screening. All exterior mechanical and electrical equipment, which includes, but is not limited to façade mounted or ground mounted Heating, Venting, and Cooling (HVAC) units, gas and electric utility meters, telecommunication equipment, backflow preventions, assemblies, irrigation control valves boxes, and electrical transformers shall be screened. i. Panels and meter locations— exterior utility panels and meters shall be located on building side yard or rear yard facades.
ii. Wall or vegetative screening requirements— walls, landscaping, or the combination of these screens shall have a minimum of 75 percent opacity and shall be a equal or exceed the height of the screened utilities.

Screening walls shall utilize the same design elements, colors and materials of the building.
iii. Accessibility— all screening shall not prohibit access for maintenance and emergency service or repair. Access standards identified by utility providers shall be met.
47 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 20

3. Roof-mounted Utilities. Exposed mechanical equipment shall be visually screened by a 75 percent (minimum) opaque or solid, non-reflective visual barrier. The design and materials of the visual barrier shall comply with the following requirements:
a. Architectural Screening. Screening be comprised of parapets, screen walls, trellis systems, or mechanical penthouses and shall include common design elements and finish materials of the building facades. Screening shall be as high and wide or higher and wider than the equipment it screens.

4. Antennas. All telecommunication antennas, including but not limited to dishes, towers, and wires shall be installed and maintained in compliance with applicable requirements of the building code and standards of the Coachella Municipal Code Chapter 17.68- Antennas.

G. Site Freestanding Walls, Fences, and Gates Standards. The standards shall be applied for at-grade visual screening between multifamily buildings, the public realm, parking lots, and adjacent development; first floor residential unit privacy patio walls; and private residential or commercial common areas. No freestanding wall, fence or gate shall preclude direct and convenient access for residents, visitors, or employees to building lobbies, or individual unit front doors from the public realm.

1. General Requirements. All walls and fences shall be installed and maintained in compliance with all applicable standards for residential single family zone fences of Chapter 17.60.
a. Emergency Access. All wall fences shall not restrict access for fire department vehicles. All development shall comply with fire vehicle accessibility standards of the California Building Code, the Coachella Chapter 15.24- Fire Code, and shall be approved by the fire code official. The fire official shall have the authority to waive, limit, or modify the standards and requirements of this ordinance. b. Swimming Pool Enclosure Fences. All fences required to enclosure swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and associated facilities shall be exempt from these standards and shall comply with all California Building Code requirements and standards.
c. Location. All freestanding walls, gates or fences shall be located a minimum of 2 feet behind any public realm line.
d. Materials. Walls shall be constructed of either masonry units that are clad in true stucco or Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems (EIFS), or decorative perforated breeze-block Concrete Masonry Units (CMU Blocks). Wrought iron fences are permitted when used in combination with evergreen landscaping that meets the 75 percent minimum opacity standard. Fences and gates constructed of chain link, wood, and vinyl are not permitted along public realm or common area frontages.

2. Parking Lot Screening Walls. All parking lots that front a public realm or common open space shall be screened by walls or a combination of walls, earth berming, and a evergreen hedge of equal height and opacity to the parking screen wall. All freestanding at-grade parking lot screening walls shall be a minimum of 42 inches in height and shall have a minimum of 75 percent opacity.
48 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 21 H. Site Solid Waste Container Enclosures Standards. Enclosures are necessary to ensure that garbage and recycling areas are properly located and screened from view from the public realm. Where possible solid waste containers should be located in a designated trash room of a building. Solid waste enclosures shall comply with the following standards:

1. Placement. Containers shall be placed behind the front façade of the primary building and outside of any easements and rights-of-way, unless expressly permitted by the City of Coachella. Containers and their screening enclosures shall be permitted to reduce the number of required parking stalls and maneuvering space. Required parking shall not be reduced without submittal and approval of an approved site plan.
a. Collection Vehicle Access. A 20 foot wide unobstructed vehicular service drive must be maintained as measured from the truck collection side of an enclosure or container placement area. Containers and enclosures located perpendicular to or along a service drive must have no less than a 30 degree angle to the drive aisle.
b. Collection Vehicle Clearance. A minimum 24 foot height clearance must be maintained along the 15 feet of vehicular path closest to the servicing side of the solid waste container or enclosure to enable overhead lifting of the container for servicing. The remaining length of the unobstructed vehicular path must maintain a minimum 16-foot height clearance. A minimum 24-foot height clearance over containers must be maintained to allow overhead lifting of the container for servicing.

2. Container Screening. All containers shall be screened from view of adjacent streets, public open space, and directly adjacent side and rear yard properties.

The enclosure shall be compatible in design, material, and color to the primary multifamily or mixed use building(s) on the site.
a. Concealed Service Area Placement. Containers shall be screened from view by buildings, freestanding screening walls, and/or combined within irrigated evergreen vegetated screen equal or greater in height of the enclosure. The containers should be located in a service area is an area at the rear or side of the building and designated for discreet service functions including deliveries, loading of goods, staging, solid waste collection and compaction, and similar activities supporting operations of the multi-family site. b. Enclosure Wall Design Standards. Enclosures shall be a minimum of 7 feet in height, 12 feet in width and length. Enclosures must be constructed of cast-in -place concrete or concrete masonry block. Wood, vinyl, wrought iron or chain link fences, cementitious or metal panels materials shall be prohibited. EIFS cladding shall be prohibited. Gates shall be provided that are solid, heavygauge metal or of a heavy-gauge metal frame clad with a heavy gauge sheet metal or other suitable, opaque material compatible to the primary multifamily structure. Five foot high bollards shall be placed 1-foot from all sides of the structure. All screening walls must be continually maintained in a state of good repair. Living vegetative screens must be installed and maintained in compliance with the landscape standards of this ordinance. 49 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 22 This page left intentionally blank
50 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 23

17.20.XXX Multi-family Building Design Standards
A. Applicability. The building design standards provided in this subsection shall apply to G-N General Neighborhood, U-N Urban Neighborhood, and applies to multi-family residential buildings in the DT-PV Downtown Pueblo Viejo zone, DT-PV Transition zone, and the U-E Urban Employment, and Neighborhood Commercial Zone District.

The following design standards shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the purpose of this Code of Ordinances and with the policies of the General Plan related to building design. The standards shall apply to all new multi-family residential building construction. Review of projects under this subsection is ministerial and shall be consistent with 17.72. Architectural Review procedures and requirements.

1. Building Modulation. The design of the building façade and roof shall be modulated to reduce the building’s scale— the perceived size and presence in relation to its existing or planned setting; and building massing— the overall volume of the structure. For all multifamily and mixed-use development, applicants shall select one of the four building modulation options.
a. Development Standards. The selected option shall comply with the site’s development standards based upon the zone in which it is located, as identified in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 of this ordinance, including permitted minimum and maximum density, lot area requirements, yard requirements, encroachments for colonnades and arcades, height limits, stepbacks, distance between buildings, usable open space standards, and parking standards.
b. Street Type. Standards for building modulation shall apply only to building façades fronting Street Type A, Street Type B, and Street Type C. c. Common Area Façades. Standards for building modulation shall apply to façades that front usable open space common areas.
d. Sites with Multiple Buildings. Sites may be composed of multiple buildings utilizing one or more option.

2. Modulation Options. For all multifamily and mixed-use development, applicants shall select one of three options. All of the standards and requirements for building modulation shall be met.
a. Option 1. The standard shall be applied only to multifamily and mixed use buildings where:
i. Minimum density— 20 dwelling units per acre,
ii. Zone— General Neighborhood (G-N), Urban Neighborhood (U-N), and Urban Employment (UE) zones.
b. Option 2. The standard shall be applied only to multifamily and mixed use buildings where:
i. Maximum density— less than 20 dwelling units per acre. ii. Zone— General Neighborhood (G-N) and Downtown Transition (DT-PV Transition) zones.
c. Option 3. The standard shall be applied to multifamily and mixed use buildings for:
i. All multifamily residential buildings.
ii. All multifamily and mixed use zones.
51 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 24

3. Option 1 Standards. The standards are intended to result in buildings with complex, varied, asymmetrical form and massing.
a. Vertical Modulation. Building façade modulation shall be achieved by providing asymmetrically arranged, irregularly stepped variations in building façade height and width. The number and arrangement of façades for all buildings greater than 2 stories in height shall be modulated as identified in Figure 17.20.2XX.7.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.7
OPTION 1 STANDARDS

VERTICAL MODULATION
i. Variation— buildings 3 floors in height shall include a minimum of 2 façade heights. Buildings 4 floor in height shall include a minimum of 3 façade heights.
ii. Arrangement— The primary façade height shall comprise more than 75 percent of the total building façade. A second façade shall be provided that comprises a minimum of 20 percent of the total façade area. A third façade height shall be provided that comprises a minimum of 5 percent of the total façade area/
iii. Prohibited— façades vertically modulated with a uniform base, middle, and top utilizing projecting belt course or cornices or uniform stepping of floors.

Street
Height 1: 75 percent (maximum) of total building façade area Height 2: 10 percent (minimum) of total building facade area greater or lesser facade height
Height 3: 5 percent (minimum) of total building facade area greater or lesser facade height
Height 2
Height 3
Height 1
52 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 25 b. Horizontal Modulation. Building horizontal façade modulation shall be achieved by providing a combination and variation in location, width, and depth of façade recesses and projections. For all buildings greater than 2 stories in height, façades shall be modulated horizontally as identified in Figure 17.20.2XX.8. i. Variation— façades recesses or projections shall include a minimum of two different heights. Heights shall vary 10 feet (minimum). No more than 25 percent of any façade shall include projections or recesses that are equal in height.
ii. Arrangement— A minimum of 25 percent of a the total façade area shall be recessed or projected from the primary façade.
iii. Width— recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. No more than 4 façade projections or recesses shall be of equal width. iv. Depth— recesses and projections shall be 4 foot or greater in depth, measured from the primary façade of the building. A minimum of 10 percent of recessed or projected façade area shall 10 feet or greater in depth.
v. Articulation— Recessed or projecting balconies, bays, oriels, exterior walkways, stairs, and terraces shall be layered and integrated into the façade modulation as an essential components of all façade compositions.

However, projecting or recessed balconies, bays, and oriel architectural articulation shall be excluded as part of the calculation of required recessed or projected façade modulation area.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.8
OPTION 1 STANDARDS

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
25 percent minimum recessed or
projected façade
Primary façade
1 foot minimum
projection or recess
4 feet or greater
projection or
recess depth
5 feet or greater
projection or
recess width
53 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 26 FIGURE 17.20.2XX.9
OPTION 1 STANDARDS

ROOF FORM
Hipped roof Flat roof with
mansard
Gable roof
d. Roof Form and Materials. Roof volume and massing shall contribute to and complement façade horizontal and vertical modulation. All buildings shall create a varied building silhouette by providing a variety of primary and secondary roof forms that are comprised of different widths, heights, and sizes as illustrated in Figure 17.20.2XX.9.
i. Required sloped roof forms— hipped or gabled roofs forms with a minimum slope of 3:12 and a maximum slope of 4:12 shall be required for a minimum of 60 percent of all roof area.
ii. Permitted flat roof forms— Parapet and mansard-screened flat roofs are permitted. Mansard roofs shall have a minimum 3:12 and a maximum 4:12 slope. Flat roofs with mansards or parapet wall enclosures shall not comprise more than 40 percent of total roof area.
iii. Roof Materials— all sloped roofs shall consist of long-lasting, durable clay or concrete tiles. Standing seam metal, asphalt, or wood shingle or shake roofs shall be prohibited.
iv. Rooftop Amenities— rooftop private terrace or occupied outdoor common space, and stair and elevator penthouse structures shall be permitted and shall be exempt from the required flat roof area requirements. 54 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 27 e. Façade Colors. All façade surfaces shall be painted. Paint color and finish shall be muted and flat to imitate colors found naturally in desert soil, trees, rocks, and other organic materials of the Coachella Valley. Paint hues and tones shall be limited to warm white shades and rich warm colors containing some brown, ranging from neutral tan to deep brown.
i. Primary color and secondary façade colors— shall be limited to a maximum of 2 paint colors. A primary color shall comprise a minimum of 80 percent of total of all façades. A secondary color shall comprise a maximum of 20 percent of any façade fronting a public realm.
ii. Windows, doors, and trim colors— limited to a maximum of 3 paint colors.

Building windows shall be limited to shades of blue, black, or warm colors containing deep brown.
iii. Exemptions— all approved murals or other public art work painted on façades shall be exempt from all façade color standards. f. Façade Materials. Façades shall be clad with durable and long lasting materials that cannot be degraded by desert sun and high temperatures. Façades are permitted to be comprised of a single cladding material. No more than two façade materials shall be utilized for any façade.
i. Primary and secondary façade materials— where 2 materials are utilized, a primary material shall clad a minimum of 80 percent of the total building façade area. A secondary material shall comprise no more than 20 percent of any public realm fronting façade.
ii. Prohibited façade materials— wood siding, cementitious siding, metal panel, glazed spandrel curtain wall, un-clad poured in-place concrete or concrete masonry block, and stacked stone veneer siding, panels, or sheets. g. Fenestration. The arrangement, location, and of character of door and window openings shall provide depth, shade, and shadow and contribute to a varied façade composition.
i. Arrangement— door and window locations shall be vertically and horizontally offset in an asymmetrical pattern. For façades greater than 2 floors in height, a maximum of 50 percent of any façade area shall be arranged in a vertically stacked windows and door pattern. ii. Recess depth— No window shall be flush with any building façade.

Individual or combined window and door system shall be recessed a minimum of 4 inches from the façade. The recess shall be measured from the outer face of the window glazing or door surface to the outer surface of the façade cladding.
iii. Projection depth— projecting sills, lintels, and trim shall not be required for any window or door. Where provided, sills, lintels, and trim shall project a maximum of 2 inches beyond the façade cladding surface. vi. Shading— upper floor door and window shading is permitted. Awnings or canopies that project no more than 4 feet beyond the façade are permitted.

For mixed use multifamily buildings with a commercial first floor use, first floor awning and canopies are permitted. All public realm and setback standards of this ordinance for projections shall be met. 55 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 28

4. Option 2 Standards. All Option 2 building design standards shall apply to building two floors or less in height. All buildings shall comply with the following standards. a. Vertical Modulation. Building vertical façade modulation shall be required. For any vertically modulated buildings greater than 1 story in height, façades shall be modulated vertically as identified in Figure 17.20.2XX.10.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.10
OPTION 2 STANDARDS

VERTICAL MODULATION
two floor buildings
Varied
step
height:
5’ (min.)

VERTICAL MODULATION
Street
Asymetrical façade composition
Primary Façade Area : 80 percent Stepped Façade
B
a
s
e
To
p
Stepped façade - higher or lower
Primary façade
i. Façade height variation— changes in façade height is not required for building 2 floors or less in height. Any variation in building façade height shall be asymmetrical. Where façade height variation is provided, a maximum of 80 percent of the total primary façade area shall be of a uniform height. Stepped façade height shall be a minimum of 5 feet higher or lower than the primary façade height.
ii. Vertical differentiation— buildings 2 floors or greater are not required to provide façade differentiation between lower (base) and upper (top) floors.

Use of a functional and/or decorative horizontal belt courses that extend the entire length of the façade is prohibited.
iii. Prohibited— façades vertically modulated utilizing façade material and color changes to differentiate any portion of the base (first floor) from the top (second floor).
56 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 29 b. Horizontal Modulation. Building horizontal façade modulation shall be achieved by providing façade recesses and/or projections. For all buildings greater than 1 story in height, façades shall be articulated horizontally as identified in Figure

17.20.2XX.11.
i. Arrangement— a minimum of 25 percent of a the total façade area shall be recessed or projected from the primary façade. Horizontal modulation variation in location, width, and depth is not required. Recessed or projecting balconies, exterior walkways, stairs, and stepback terraces shall be integrated as an essential components of all façade compositions.
ii. Width— recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width iii. Depth— recesses and projections shall be 6 feet or greater in depth, measured from the primary façade of the building.
iv. Articulation— Recessed or projecting balconies, bays, oriels, exterior walkways, stairs, and terraces shall be layered and integrated into the façade modulation as essential components of all façade compositions.

However, projecting or recessed balconies, bays, and oriel architectural articulation shall be excluded as part of the calculation of required recessed or projected façade modulation area.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.11
OPTION 2 STANDARDS

VERTICAL MODULATION
Street
Horizontally modulated facade: 25 percent
minimum recessed or projected façade area
Primary façade
6 foot minimum depth
of projection or recess 10 foot minimum
width of projection
or recess
Excludes architectural
articulation: bays, stair
and balcony projections
or recesses
Architectural articulation
57 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 30 c. Roof Form and Materials. Roofs shall contribute to and complement façade variations in volume and massing. A variety of roof widths, heights, size, and forms are permitted but are not required. No roof overhang shall project more than 1 foot beyond any building façade or balcony. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall comply with all rooftop screening standards of this ordinance. i. Roof forms— sloped roof forms shall comprise a minimum of 80 percent of the total roof area. Hipped or gabled roofs forms with a minimum slope of 3:12 and a maximum slope of 4:12 shall be required. A maximum of 20 percent of the total roof area shall be permitted to include flat roofs screened by mansards that have a minimum 3:12 and a maximum 4:12 roof slope. ii. Roof Materials— all sloped roofs shall consist of long-lasting, durable clay or concrete tiles. Standing seam metal, asphalt or wood shingle or shake roofs shall be prohibited.
d. Façade Colors. All façade surfaces shall be painted. Paint color and finish shall be muted and flat to imitate colors found naturally in desert soil, trees, rocks, and other organic materials of the Coachella Valley. Paint hues and tones shall be limited to warm white shades and rich warm colors containing some brown, ranging from neutral tan to deep brown.
i. Primary color and secondary façade colors— utilization of a single façade color shall be permitted. A maximum of 2 paint colors shall be permitted. A primary color shall comprise a minimum of 80 percent of total of all façades.

A secondary color shall comprise a maximum of 20 percent of any façade fronting a public realm.
ii. Windows, doors, and trim colors— limited to a maximum of 3 paint colors.

Building windows shall be limited to shades of blue, black, or warm colors containing deep brown.
e. Façade Materials. Façades shall be clad with durable and long lasting materials that cannot be degraded by desert sun and high temperatures. Façades are permitted to be comprised of a single cladding material. No more than two façade materials shall be utilized for any façade.
i. Primary façade materials— where 2 materials are utilized, a primary material shall clad a minimum of 80 percent of the total building façade area. A secondary material shall comprise no more than 20 percent of any public realm fronting façade.
ii. Permitted secondary materials include cast in place or precast concrete, decorative tiles, painted metal, treated or painted wood exposed structural beams, columns, and posts for balconies, trellises, or arcades. iii. Prohibited façade materials— wood siding, cementitious siding, metal panel, glazed spandrel curtain wall, un-clad poured in-place concrete or concrete masonry block, stacked stone veneer siding, panels, or sheets; moulded simulated stucco (EIFS) cornices, belt, courses, door and widow trim, sills, and lintels.
58 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 31 f. Balconies. Private balconies shall be provided for a minimum of 25 percent of all residential units fronting the public realm.
i. Articulation— balconies are permitted to be recessed or project from the building’s primary or horizontally modulated façade.
ii. Minimum depth— balconies shall project or recess a minimum of 6 feet from the building’s primary or horizontally modulated façade. iii. Shading— balconies are permitted but not required to include a projecting roof structure above.
g. Fenestration. The building façade shall be articulated to create visual interest and provide weather protection. The arrangement, location and of character of door, window openings shall be “punched in” to provide depth, shade, and shadow.
i. Openings— a minimum of 20 percent of all façades shall include window or door openings.
ii. Recess depth— no window shall be flush with any building façade. All window and door openings shall be recessed a minimum of 4 inches. The recess shall be measured from the outer face of the window or door glazing to the outer edge of the primary façade cladding surface.
iii. Projection depth— projecting sills, lintels, and trim shall not be required for any window or door. Where provided, sills, lintels, and trim shall project a maximum of 1 inch beyond the façade cladding surface.
h. Architectural Accents. Functional, structural or ornamental embellishment consistent with the architectural vernacular of the building is permitted.

Architectural accents shall be use to reinforce vertical and horizontal modulation and provide visual interest to blank walls. The following design features shall be permitted to provide façade articulation and modulation:
i. Awnings and canopies— upper floor awnings or canopies are permitted over windows, doors, or balconies. Materials and colors of all canopies or awnings shall be complimentary with the overall building color palette.

Interior-illuminated vinyl awnings are prohibited. Any integrated light fixture within a canopy or awning shall direct light downward toward the sidewalk or façade.

59 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 32

5. Option 3 Standards. The standards are intended to result in simple horizontallyemphasized, streamline building form, volume, and massing. a. Vertical Modulation. Vertical modulation is not required buildings two floors or less in height. Buildings shall be vertically modulated identified in Figure

17.20.2XX.12.
i. Variation— a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 building heights shall be required for all building façades. For sloped sites of more than 5 percent, a maximum of 4 façade height shall be permitted.
ii. Arrangement— the primary façade shall not comprise more than 80 percent of the total façade area.
iii. Exemptions— any required stair and elevator penthouse structure, rooftop mechanical, solar array screen walls, or rooftop common area structures shall not be included in the vertical modulation calculations.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.12
OPTION 3 STANDARDS

VERTICAL MODULATION

FOUR FLOOR BUILDINGS

VERTICAL MODULATION
Street
2 (min.)
facade
heights
Height 1
Excludes
rooftop uses or
required top floor
step back facades
Height 1: 80 percent (maximum) of total facade area
Height 2: 20 percent (minimum) of the ttoal facade area Height 2
Rooftop or step back facades
Lorem ipsum
60 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 33 c. Horizontal Modulation. Building horizontal façade modulation shall be achieved by providing a uniform and consistent modulation in location, width, and depth of façade recesses and/or projections. For all buildings greater than 2 stories in height, façades shall be articulated horizontally as identified in Figure 17.20.2XX.13.

FIGURE 17.20.2XX.13
OPTION 3 STANDARDS

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
Horizontally modulated: 20% (minimum) of
total facade area recessed or projected
Primary façade
Street
10 foot
minimum
width
10 foot
minimum
depth
Excludes architectural
articulation: stair,
elevator and balcony
projections or recesses
i. Variation— a minimum of 20 percent of the total façade area of buildings shall be recessed or projected from the primary façade. ii. Width— recesses or projections shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width. iii. Depth— recesses and projections shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 30 feet in depth, measured from the primary façade of the building.
iv. Articulation— Recessed or projecting balconies shall be integrated into the façade composition. However, recessed or projected stair and elevator vertical circulation, or balconies shall not be included as part of the calculation of required recessed.
61 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 34 d. Roof Forms. Roofs shall contribute to and complement façade simple horizontal volume and massing. Stepping variation of roof height shall be minimized. i. Flat Roof Forms— all roofs shall be flat. Roofs shall permit minimal sloping to meet drainage requirements. All roofs shall have a uniform height for a minimum of 80 percent of the building area. Parapets no greater than 4 feet in height are permitted. All roofs shall overhang a minimum of 6 foot bond the building’s primary façade.
ii. Accent Roof Forms— raised, angled shed, or lowered roofs shall be limited to roofs over the lobbies, stair and elevator vertical circulation, and rooftop common areas.
iii. Prohibited— hipped, gable, and mansard sloped roof forms. e. Façade Colors. Façades are not required to be painted. Painted façades are permitted to be painted a single paint color. Façades painted more than one color shall comply with the following standards.
i. Primary and secondary colors— façades shall be limited to a maximum of 4 paint colors. A primary color shall be used for a minimum of 60 percent of all façades. The primary color shall be limited to warm white shades or rich, warm colors containing some brown (ranging from neutral tan to light brown). Primary paint color and finish shall be muted and flat to imitate colors found naturally in desert soil and rocks of the Coachella Valley. A secondary color(s) shall comprise a maximum of 40 percent of all façades.

Secondary façades are permitted to utilize all the tints, tones, and hues of the full color spectrum.
ii. Window and door colors— windows and doors shall be limited to 1 paint color. Building windows shall be limited to shades of white or black or warm colors containing deep brown.
f. Façade Materials. Façades shall be clad with durable and long lasting materials that cannot be degraded by desert sun and high temperatures. Façades are permitted to be comprised of a single cladding material. No more than 3 façade materials shall be utilized for any façade.
i. Primary façade material — the primary material shall be limited to metal panel, stucco or simulated stucco (EIFS), cast in place or precast concrete, or concrete masonry block, or masonry brick materials applied to a minimum of 75% of the total façade area.
ii. Secondary materials — cast in place or precast concrete, decorative tiles, stone veneer, metal panels and glazed curtain walls are permitted. iii. Prohibited façade materials— wood siding, cementitious siding; treated or painted wood exposed structural beams, columns, and posts for balconies, or trellises; moulded simulated stucco (EIFS) door and widow trim, sills, and lintels.
g. Balconies. Balconies shall required for all upper floor residential units. i. Articulation— balconies are permitted to be recessed or project from the building’s primary façade.
ii. Minimum depth— balconies shall project or recess a minimum of 6 feet from the building’s primary façade.
iii. Minimum area— 60 square feet.
iv. Shading— all balconies shall be required to include a projecting roof for top floors or a balcony structure above for lower floors.
62 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 35 i. Fenestration. The building façade shall be articulated to create visual interest and provide weather protection. The arrangement, location and of character of door, window openings shall be “punched in” to provide depth, shade, and shadow. Door and window locations shall contribute to a symmetrical building form. Buildings following Option 3 shall comply with the following standards:
i. Required openings— Façades shall be comprised of a minimum of 50 percent openings for all façades fronting a public realm or common open space, excluding façades that contain stair or elevator vertical circulation. ii. Recess depth— no window shall be flush with any building façade. All window and door openings shall be recessed a minimum of 2 inches. The recess shall be measured from the outer face of the window or door glazing to the outer edge of the primary façade cladding surface.
iii. Projection depth— projecting sills, lintels, and trim shall not be required for any window or door. Where provided, sills, lintels, and trim shall project a maximum of 1 inch beyond the façade cladding surface.
63 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 36 B. Residential Entry Standards. First floor residential entires shall be located to foster street-oriented pedestrian activity. Residential entrances of all multi-family or mixed use buildings shall comply with the following standards.

1. Lobby Entries. Primary common entrances for tenants, guests, and interior first floor common areas and staff offices shall be located at the first floor and shall be directly accessible from the Street Type A or Street Type B public realm, usable open space common area adjacent to the public realm, or a required front yard setback. a. At-grade Entrances. All multi-family and mixed use zone lobby entrances shall be at-grade with the adjacent public realm sidewalk.
b. Visibility. Lobby entrances shall have direct sight lines and continuous and unobstructed pedestrian access from the public realm.
c. Prohibited Orientation. Lobby primary entries are prohibited from alleys, driveways, parking lots, or parking structures. Secondary entries are permitted from driveways, parking lots, or parking structures.
64 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 37

2. Individual Residential Unit Entries. First floor residential unit entries are permitted fronting Street Type A , Street Type B, and Street Type C, driveways, and parking lots. Individual entrances shall be accessed from the adjacent public realm, usable common open space, or required setback as specified in Figure 17.20.2XX.14.

FIGURE 20.48.2XX.14

INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES STANDARDS
5-foot minimum depth
First floor residential entry
Public realm line
40 square feet
minimum area
Street
a. Universal Access. All multi-family and mixed use building first floor individual entries shall comply with all current California Building Code minimum requirements for multi-family or mixed use building means of egress for exterior doors.
b. Front Door Setbacks. All first floor entrances shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the public realm line.
c. Minimum Dimensions. Entry landing or stoops not including stairs, shall be a minimum of 40 square feet. Individual residential entries accessed directly from the public realm and shall have a minimum walkway, ramp, and/or stairs width of 6 feet for single unit entries. Landings or stoops shall be a minimum of 1 foot wider than the entry doorway width.
65 Item 2.

Draft Coachella Multi-Family Objective Development Standards | 38 FIGURE 17.22XX.15

FIRST FLOOR TRANSPARENCY STANDARDS
First floor commercial use
15’
Residential first floor use Residential first floor use Excludes first
floor residential
use frontages
50 percent required opening
First floor commercial calcuation area
C. First Floor Transparency Standards. First floor commercial façades shall be designed to generate passive surveillance ‘eyes on the street’ visibility by engaging the public realm and providing transparency between the pedestrian realm and first floor uses. This standard applies only to portions of at-grade first floor façades that contain occupied commercial uses fronting the public realm. All multi-family mixed use development shall comply with the following standards as specified in Figure 17.20.2XX.15.

1. Calculation. The first floor façade opening area shall include the area the primary façade measured vertically between the finished floor elevation and 15 feet above the first finished floor elevation multiplied by the horizontal length of the interior occupied use.
a. Openings. A minimum of 50% of first floor façades shall include transparent glazed doors and window openings.
b. Window and Door Systems. All window and door components including the frame, jamb, head, sill, mullions, muntins, and glazing shall comprise an opening. Any decorative window or door trim around the window or door frame shall be not included as part of the opening calculation. c. Prohibited Glazing. No dark-tinted or opaque glazing for any required wall opening along first floor public realm façades is permitted. Dark-tinted and opaque windows shall be defined as having less than a minimum visible transmittance of 50 percent, including any tint, treatment, or application on glazing.
d. Exceptions. The first floor façade opening calculation requirements does not apply to façades where perpendicular recessed or projected wall area occur; and where internal vertical stair and elevator circulation stairs and elevators, loading, and storage, or parking facilities occur.
66 Item 2.
67 Item 2.

From: Colleen Edwards
To: Gabriel Perez
Subject: RE: TCC Project Site - South Portion of 6th between Tripoli and Date Date: June 13 23 11:16:20 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Gabriel,
Here are my personal opinions with regard to the objective design standards:

Onsite easements for public use (Transition Area Zones) represent a taking of land making a significant area of private sites unbuildable.

Setting the first floor back from the rest of the building façade would require upper floor cantilevers which are difficult and expensive. This is a detail that we would not be interested in implementing. Instead the entire building would be pulled back to the buildable line representing a significant loss of building floor area yield per site.

Vertical modulations is a taking of air space rights reducing the buildable area that can be achieved from development sites. This also creates undesirable conditions where elevators service partial floors. I would suggest roof modulation instead.

Required depth recesses are a taking of development rights decreasing onsite buildable areas.

Entries with steps up to entry doors from public sidewalks require import of large quantities of expensive dirt to raise the floor plates in the case of flat sites. This feature is typically not financially feasible for affordable housing.

I would suggest applying the standards to the proposed 6th Street Senior project to see if the impacts to the development are as detrimental as I believe they will be based on the draft objective design standards. We should go through the exercise before we submit TCC to be sure that the development is feasible at all and to be sure that it can be built for the budget that we are including in the grant application.

In general these standards are developer unfriendly, represent a significant reduction in buildable area per site reducing unit production and will increase costs beyond what is feasible for most developments having an overall negative impact on the housing supply in the City of Coachella.

Colleen
Colleen Edwards

LEED AP - MRED
Sr. Development Executive
323-590-0233
From: Gabriel Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:03 AM
To: Colleen Edwards <[email protected]>; Dave Davis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: TCC Project Site - South Portion of 6th between Tripoli and Date Please do. I will need to send to our consultant.

From: Colleen Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: June 13 23 9:02 AM
To: Gabriel Perez <[email protected]>; Dave Davis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: TCC Project Site - South Portion of 6th between Tripoli and Date Understood. I’ll get comments to you today.

I believe the standards would force a partial 4th floor in the building that we would not want if we are required to have strict compliance.

Colleen
From: Gabriel Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8:56 AM
To: Colleen Edwards <[email protected]>; Dave Davis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: TCC Project Site - South Portion of 6th between Tripoli and Date Please submit your comments. I don’t know if we will suggest changing them. This is already going to Planning Commission next week.

From: Colleen Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: June 13 23 8:42 AM
To: Gabriel Perez <[email protected]>; Dave Davis <[email protected]> Subject: RE: TCC Project Site - South Portion of 6th between Tripoli and Date Hi Gabriel,
To meet TCC deadlines we need to have CEQA compliance by application date 8/1. I would appreciate if you would please keep that deadline in mind.

Also, the housing element must be approved by the time of award later in the year. 68 Item 2.

COACHELLA

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2023 | 5:00 p.m.

This project is funded and managed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through their Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) program with grant funding from State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) 69 Item 2.

AGENDA

1. Presentation 20 Minutes

2. Clarification Questions
70 Item 2.

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

STATE LEGISLATION
Coachella is required to accelerate
housing production and reduce
housing costs through:

1. Certainty in adopted ODS.

2. Faster permitting
Image: Crandall Arambula
71 Item 2.

WHY DO WE NEED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS?
The Coachella Planning Commission currently
uses the discretionary Architectural Review
process to the Pueblo Viejo Design Guidelines
to review multi-family housing development
applications.

1. The guidelines contain ambiguous and
unclear recommendations for the review of
new development that can interpreted
multiple ways.

2. Subjectivity of guidelines often results in
inconsistent interpretations, as well as
prolonged review processes that impede the
creation of new townhomes, apartments,
and condominiums.

NO ODS CURRENTLY EXIST
72 Item 2.

Objective development standards offer
no “gray area” for interpretation.

1. Objective development standards are
‘requirements’ (e.g., ‘shall’ or ‘must’) that
are measurable and verifiable, as opposed
to guideline ‘recommendations’ (e.g.; ‘may’
or ‘should’) that are subjective.

2. The objectivity of standards provides
predictable outcomes because projects are
reviewed without interpretation by City
Planning Staff, facilitating the creation of
new apartments, townhomes, and
condominiums.

ODS WILL BE PREDICTABLE
WHAT ARE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS?
73 Item 2.

The standards are applicable only to
new development in the following
General Plan Update 2035 Land Use
designated areas:

1. Mixed use apartment development
in Downtown, Urban Employment,
and Neighborhood Center areas.

2. Apartment and townhome
development in the Urban
Neighborhood and General
Neighborhood areas.

3. Objective Development Standards
DO NOT apply to single-family
Suburban Neighborhood areas.

WHERE WILL THESE STADARDS APPLY?

NEW DEVELOPMENT
74 Item 2.

Development review will be ‘ministerial’,
provided exclusively by City Staff.
• NO review by the Planning Commission or
City Council
• Discretionary. Applicants can opt out and
use existing Architectural Review process.

Requires a submittal of:
• Senate Bill (SB) 330 Application.
• SB 35 Affordable Housing Eligibility
Application. Is optional.

CITY STAFF REVIEW
WHO WILL REVIEW THE PROJECTS?
75 Item 2.

Development Application review
will be streamlined.
• 90 Days: Approval for projects
150 units or less.
• 180 Days: Approval for projects
more than 150 units.
• CEQA: SB 35 eligible projects
are exempt from
lengthy environmental
review processes.

Image: Crandall Arambula
FOR DEVELOPERS:

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ODS CITY STAFF REVIEW?
76 Item 2.

Increased supply of high-quality
development
• Building design based on
community values.
• Sidewalk and plaza amenities
constructed and maintained by
developers.
• Additional shopping opportunities
at businesses in mixed use
projects.

FOR CITY RESIDENTS:

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF ODS CITY STAFF REVIEW?
Image: Crandall Arambula
77 Item 2.

OBJECTIVE DESIGN

STANDARDS

CONTENT
Image: Crandall Arambula
78 Item 2.

THE ODS WILL REGULATE
• Public Realm Improvements
• Site Design
• Building Design
HOW WILL THE ODS STANDARDS BE STRUCTURED?
79 Item 2.

THE ODS WILL REGULATE
• PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS
HOW WILL THE ODS STANDARDS BE STRUCTURED?
80 Item 2.
‘PUBLIC REALM’

IMPROVEMENTS
(Perimeter streetscape standards)
• Widened sidewalks
• Canopy street trees
• Shrubs and ground cover
• Ornamental lighting
• Benches and bike racks
HOW WILL THE ODS BE STRUCTURED?
81 Item 2.

Safe walking and rolling access for people walking is lacking on many busy streets.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

BUSY STREETS
Standards will be provided to address
pedestrian safety and comfort
Multi-family
development site
Image: Google Earth
82 Item 2.

Standards apply to streets
generally that are wider and have
higher traffic volumes.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

BUSY STREETS STANDARDS
Image: Crandall Arambula
83 Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

BUSY STREETS STANDARDS
Multi-family buildings on sites
that front the following street
classifications* shall comply with
these standards:
• Major Arterial
• Primary Arterial
• Collector Streets
(*Coachella General Plan designation)
Image: Crandall Arambula
84 Item 2.

The intent of standards is to foster safe and comfortable pedestrian access by providing a more robust landscaped buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

BUSY STREETS
Landscape buffer
example
No landscape
buffer example

NOT THIS THIS
85 Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

BUSY STREETS
Three distinct and
contiguous sidewalk zones
comprise the 20’ wide public
realm.
• Parkway Zone (PKZ)
• Sidewalk Zone (SWZ)
• Transition Area Zone (TAZ)
A public easement will be
required.
86 Item 2.

These streets generally are
narrower and have lower traffic
volumes.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

QUIET STREETS STANDARDS
87 Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

QUIET STREETS STANDARDS
Multi-family buildings on sites
that front the following street
classifications* shall comply with
these standards:
• Collector
• Suburban Residential
• Urban Residential
• Cul-de-sac
(*Coachella General Plan designation)
88 Item 2.

The intent of standards is to foster a safe, direct, and comfortable pedestrian access to first floor residential entries, internal driveways, common spaces, and paseos and encourage first floor street-oriented residential activity and visibility.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

QUIET STREETS
Landscape buffer
example
No landscape
buffer example

NOT THIS THIS
Direct access to
residences 89
Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM STANDARDS

QUIET STREETS
Three distinct and
contiguous sidewalk zones
comprise the 15’ wide public
realm.
• Parkway Zone (PKZ)
• Sidewalk Zone (SWZ)
• Transition Area Zone (TAZ)
A public easement will be
required.
90 Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
(privacy and livability standards)
• Address potential first floor
residential or commercial building
conditions
• Establish requirements for any
required building setback.

HOW WILL THE ODS STANDARDS BE STRUCTURED?
First floor
residential
standards
First floor
commercial
standards
91 Item 2.

AT-GRADE STANDARDS FIRST

FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USE
The intent of the standards is to
provide adequate privacy separation
between the first floor unit interior
living space and the public realm
providing a setback.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
92 Item 2.

Standards are intended ensure privacy and provide usable outdoor space.

Standards will establish conditions for at-grade residential uses.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
Required first
floor setback
First floor
residences
Patios permitted
in setback
CONDITION 1 CONDITION 1
93 Item 2.

Standards will establish standards for at-grade conditions Standards will be created to provide privacy for first floor residents

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
CONDITION 2
Landscaping
permitted in
setback
Required first
First floor floor setback
residences
CONDITION 2
94 Item 2.

ABOVE-GRADE FIRST FLOOR
RESIDENTIAL USE.

Provide a privacy grade separation
between the first floor units and the
public realm when the building is not
setback.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
95 Item 2.

Standards will establish standards for above-grade conditions Ground floor residential uses
setback from the sidewalk to
accommodate a stoop and
stairs
Standards will be created to provide privacy for first floor residents

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
Required first
floor setback
96 Item 2.

Standards will establish standards for above-grade conditions Ground floor residential units constructed to
the sidewalk line are permitted, but finished
floor must be raised above adjacent sidewalk
grade to prevent views into residences
Finished Floor
Finished Floor
Standards are inted to provide privacy for first floor residents

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
97 Item 2.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION

AT-GRADE FIRST FLOOR

COMMERCIAL USE
Permit direct first floor
access between first floor
commercial and sidewalk when the
building is not setback.
98 Item 2.

Standards will establish standards for at-grade conditions Standards will be created to foster day and evening activity.

PUBLIC REALM TRANSITION
Setbacks will be permitted for
public or private outdoor
seating and landscaping.

Ground floor commercial shall be
permitted to be the sidewalk.
99 Item 2.

THE ODS WILL REGULATE
• Public Realm Improvements
• SITE DESIGN
HOW WILL THE ODS STANDARDS BE STRUCTURED?
100
Item 2.

LANDSCAPING
• Unify multiple buildings
• Enhance the enjoyment and beauty
of public and private spaces
• Provide visual screening
• Providing shade from the sun and
shelter from the wind.

SITE PLANNING STANDARDS
101
Item 2.

OUTDOOR LIGHTING
• Ensure nighttime safety
• Animate gathering areas
• No lighting shall create any
unnecessary nuisance

SITE PLANNING STANDARDS
102
Item 2.

UTILITIES
• Do not detract from the visual
quality of a public realm or building
facades.
• Underground where feasible
• Screened

SITE PLANNING STANDARDS
103
Item 2.

WALLS, FENCES, AND GATES
• Parking lots
• Adjacent development
• First floor residential unit privacy
patio walls
• Common areas

SITE PLANNING STANDARDS
104
Item 2.

THE ODS WILL REGULATE
• Public Realm Improvements
• Site Design
• BUILDING DESIGN
HOW WILL THE ODS STANDARDS BE STRUCTURED?
105
Item 2.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2
OPTION 3

BUILDING MODULATION
INTENT:
• Optional architectural approaches.
• Reduce the building’s scale— the
perceived size and presence in
relation to its existing or planned
setting
• Building massing— the overall
volume of the structure. Building
should be perceived as multiple
structures.
106
Item 2.

BUILDING MODULATION
OPTION 1
The standard shall be applied where:
• Minimum density— 20 dwelling
units per acre.
• General Neighborhood, Urban
Neighborhood, and Urban
Employment zones.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Three and four
floor buildings
107
Item 2.

OPTION 1

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Requires asymmetrically arranged,
irregularly stepped variations in
building facade height and width.
• Includes standards for three or four
floor buildings

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Stepped facades
108
Item 2.

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Variation—include a minimum of 3
façade heights
• Arrangement— no single facade
height shall comprise more than 75
percent of the total building
façade.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 1
109
Item 2.

OPTION 1

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
• Achieved by providing a
combination and variation in
location, width, and depth of
façade recesses and projections.
• Applies to buildings are greater
than 2 stories in height.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Recessed or projected
facades
110
Item 2.

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
• Arrangement— A minimum of 25% of the
total façade area shall be modulated
• Width— modulation shall be a minimum
of 10 feet in width. No more than 4 facade
projections or recesses shall be of equal
width.
• Depth— recesses and projections shall be
4 foot or greater in depth. A minimum of
10% modulated facade area shall 10 feet
or greater in depth.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 1
111
Item 2.

ROOF FORM & MATERIALS
• Roof volume and massing shall
contribute to and complement
facade horizontal and vertical
modulation. All buildings shall
create a varied building silhouette
by providing a variety of primary
and secondary roof forms that are
comprised of different widths,
heights, and sizes.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 1
Varied sloped and flat
roof forms
112
Item 2.

ROOF FORM & MATERIALS
• Required sloped roof forms—
hipped or gabled roofs shall be
required for a minimum of 60
percent of all roof area.
• Permitted flat roof forms— Parapet
and mansard-screened flat roofs
are permitted. Flat roofs with
mansards or parapet wall
enclosures shall not comprise more
than 40 percent of total roof area.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 1
113
Item 2.

BUILDING MODULATION
OPTION 2
The standard shall be applied where:
• Maximum density— 20 dwelling
units per acre.
• General Neighborhood, Downtown
Transition , and Urban Employment
zones.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Two floor
buildings
114
Item 2.

OPTION 2

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Requires asymmetrically arranged,
irregularly stepped variations in
building facade height and width.
• Standards apply to two floor
buildings
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 2
Stepped facades
115
Item 2.

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Variation—maximum of 80 percent
of the total primary facade area
shall be of a uniform height.
stepped facade height shall be a
minimum of 5 feet higher or lower
than the primary facade height.
• Vertical differentiation— buildings
2 floors or greater are not required
to provide facade differentiation
between lower (base) and upper
(top) floors
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 2
116
Item 2.

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
• Variation—include a minimum of 3
façade Arrangement— a minimum
of 25 percent of a the total façade
area shall be recessed or projected
from the primary façade.
• Width— recesses or projections
shall be a minimum of 10 feet in
width.
• Depth— recesses and projections
shall be 6 feet or greater in depth
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 2
Recessed or projected
facades
117
Item 2.

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
• Variation—include a minimum of 3
façade Arrangement— a minimum
of 25 percent of the total façade
area shall be recessed or projected
from the primary façade.
• Width— recesses or projections
shall be a minimum of 10 feet in
width.
• Depth— recesses and projections
shall be 6 feet or greater in depth
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 2
118
Item 2.

ROOF FORM & MATERIALS
• Roof volume and massing shall
contribute to and complement
facade horizontal and vertical
modulation.
• All buildings shall create a varied
building silhouette by providing a
variety of primary and secondary
roof forms that are comprised of
different widths, heights, and sizes.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 2
119
Item 2.

BUILDING MODULATION
OPTION 3
The standards are intended to result
in simple horizontally emphasized,
streamline building form, volume,
and massing.

The standard shall be applied where:
• All zones where multifamily use is
permitted
• No minimum or maximum density
requirements

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Two floor or
greater buildings
120
Item 2.

OPTION 3

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Buildings two floors or less —
variation in façade height is not
required in height.
• Buildings three floors or more —
three variation facade heights shall
be permitted for all building
facades.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Stepped facades
121
Item 2.

VERTICAL MODULATION
• Arrangement— the primary facade
shall not comprise more than 80
percent of the total facade area.
• Excludes—stair and elevator
penthouse structure or rooftop
common area structures.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 3
122
Item 2.

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
Building horizontal façade
modulation shall be achieved by
providing facade recesses and/or
projections that include uniform and
consistent modulation in :
• Location
• Width
• Depth
BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 3
Recesses or
projections
123
Item 2.

HORIZONTAL MODULATION
• Variation— a minimum of 20
percent of the total facade area of
buildings shall be recessed or
projected.
• Width— recesses or projections
shall be a minimum of 10 feet in
width.
• Depth— recesses and projections
shall be a minimum of 10 feet and a
maximum of 30 feet.

BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS — OPTION 3
124
Item 2.

APPROVAL PROCESSES
Image: Crandall Arambula
125
Item 2.

MINISTERIAL REVIEW:

APPROVAL PROCESS
Preapplication
Conference e
Ministerial Review of
Complete Development
Application
Building Permit
Submit SB330 Application/
SB 35 Eligibility Form
Compliance Determined
ODS Met
126
Item 2.

MINISTERIAL REVIEW:

SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM
128
Item 2.

SB-35 AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATION FORM
129
Item 2.

MINISTERIAL REVIEW:

ODS EVALUATION FORM
Application Information.
• Applicant
• Property Owner
• Project Information
MINISTERIAL REVIEW:
131
Item 2.

ODS EVALUATION FORM
ODS EVALUATION CHECKLIST.
• Objective Standard
• Not Applicable Determination
• Compliance Determination
MINISTERIAL REVIEW:
132
Item 2.

ODS EVALUATION FORM — EXHIBIT EXAMPLES
ELECTRONIC FILES SUBMITTED.
• Upload/Attach Graphics
• Upload/Attach Narrative text
•
APPLICANT PROVIDE SUPPORTING MATERIALS:
133
Item 2.

ODS EVALUATION FORM — EXHIBIT EXAMPLES
134
Item 2.

ODS EVALUATION FORM — NARRATIVE EXAMPLES
135
Item 2.

QUESTIONS?
Image: Crandall Arambula
136
Item 2.

COACHELLA

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 21, 2023 | 5:00 p.m.

STAFF REPORT
6/21/2023
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Adrian Moreno, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Coachella Warehouses – CUP 276, AR No. 16-18 (Modification) SPECIFICS: The proposed CUP 276, AR No. 16-18 (Modification) is to modify condition of approval No. 20 to clarify off-site improvements for the Coachella Warehouse project located on 14.61 acres at 84-851 Avenue 48.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit 276 and Architectural Review No. 16-18 (Modification), a modification to Condition of Approval No. 20 to clarify off-site improvements for the Coachella Warehouse project located on 14.61 acres at 84- 851 Avenue 48.

BACKGROUND:

On December 21, 2016 the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. PC2016-14, a resolution approving AR No. 16-18 and CUP No. 276 to allow the phased development of a medical marijuana cultivation complex including 18 industrial buildings totaling 255,800 SF and common parking, landscaping, and security fencing, and an interim use of 18 mobile units to be located in the planned southeast parking area, on a total of 14 acres of land in the M-W (Wrecking Yard) Zone at 84-851 Avenue 48. On February 8, 2017 City Council adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program (Environmental Assessment No. 16-05) for the Coachella Warehouses project. One March 22, 2017 City Council approved a development agreement for the Coachella Warehouses project.

The project was approved to be conducted in three phases as shown in the Phase 1- 3 (Ultimate Build Out) figure provided below. The Phase 1 of the project includes the construction of nine (9) buildings totaling 109,000 SF. Phase 1A includes the interim use facility along Harrison Street.

Phase 2 of the project includes the construction of seven (7) buildings totaling 98,000 SF, and the removal of the interim use facility. Phase 3A of the project includes the adaptive reuse of existing buildings on the northerly 3.6 acres. Phase 3 of the project includes the construction of four (4) buildings totaling 48,000 SF. Phase 1, 1A, and 3A improvements have been constructed, and are the existing conditions on site, see Phase 1, 1A, 3A (Existing Conditions) figure provided below.

The applicant is preparing to begin phase 2 of the project, and as a result submitted an application for a lot line adjustment for the properties. Staff is requiring that prior to approval of the lot line 138
Item 3.
adjustment, the applicant would receive Planning Commission approval for a modification of Condition of Approval (CoA) No. 20 for Conditional Use Permit 276 and Architectural Review No. 16-18 concerning street improvements that have not been completed to date.

Phase 1-3 (Ultimate Build Out) Figure 1
Phase 1, 1A, 3A (Existing Conditions) Figure 2
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Modification of condition of approval No. 20 for Conditional Use Permit No. 276 and Architectural Review No. 16-18 adds language clarifying that street improvement plans shall be prepared and approved prior to the issuance of any additional building permits, and that all street improvements shall be installed and accepted by the City prior to the certificate of occupancy for any additional buildings. Also included in this modification is language detailing the required 139
Item 3.
dedications and improvements required of the project including the installation of full curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, lighting and more along Avenue 48 and Harrison Street. See added language to condition of approval No. 20 below in Bold:

Engineering - Street Improvements:

Street improvement plans shall more specifically conform with the following:
a. Street improvement plans shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any additional building permits.
b. All Street improvements shall be installed and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy of any additional buildings. c. Dedication of land along the east bound lane of Avenue 48 and the south bound lane of Harrison Street shall be required along the frontage of Parcel “C” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No. 2023-2. Avenue 48 from the Center line to the northerly property line shall have a width of 40 feet. Harrison Street from the Center line to the easterly property line shall also have a width of 40 feet. d. On Avenue 48, full curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, lighting, etc. shall be completed from the northwest corner of Parcel “C” to the intersection of Harrison Street and Avenue 48, including all off site frontage work adjacent to Parcels “A” and “B” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No 2023-2. Street paving and striping transition work shall extend westerly from the northwest property corner a distance of not less than 200 feet to accomplish standard lane transitioning. e. On Harrison Street, full curb, gutter sidewalk, landscape, lighting improvements, etc. shall be completed from the Southeast corner of Parcel “C” to the intersection of Harrison Street and Avenue 48, including all off site frontage work adjacent to Parcels “A” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No 2023-2. Street paving and striping transition work shall extend southerly from the southeast property corner a distance of not less than 200 feet to accomplish standard lane transitioning.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No. 16-05 was prepared for the original project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and distributed to responsible agencies for review and comment. Based on that Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures therein, it had been determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 140
Item 3.
original project. The project will not have any significant adverse effects on the environment. The proposed modified condition would clarify existing project requirements for street improvements on Avenue 48 and Harrison Street and would not result in any new project impacts beyond those evaluated in Environmental Assessment No. 16-05.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution PC2023-15 Conditional Use Permit No. 276 and Architectural Review No. 16-18 (Modification), a modification to Condition of Approval No. 20 to clarify off-site improvements for the Coachella Warehouse project located on 14.61 acres at 84-851 Avenue 48.

Attachments:

1. Resolution PC 2023-15 (Amendment to conditions of approval for CUP No. 276 and AR No. 16-18)
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval CUP No. 276 and AR No. 16-18

2. Coachella Warehouses PC 12-21-2016 Presentation (Original Approval) 141
Item 3.

RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-15

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AMENDING CONDITION
NO. 20 OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO. 16-18 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 276 MODIFYING THE APPROVED PHASED

DEVELOPMENT OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION

COMPLEX INCLUDING EIGHTEEN INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALING 255,800 SQUARE FEET AND COMMON PARKING,

LANDSCAPING AND SECURITY FENCING AND AN INTERIM USE OF

EIGHTEEN MOBILE UNITS TO BE LOCATED IN THE PLANNED
SOUTHEAST PARKING AREA, ON A TOTAL OF 14 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE M-W (WRECKING YARD) ZONE AT 84-851 AVENUE 48,

COACHELLA WAREHOUSES, JOE QUERCIO (APPLICANT)
WHEREAS, Joe Quercio (Applicant) filed an application for Architectural Review No. 16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276 (Modification) to clarify existing project requirements for street improvements on Avenue 48 and Harrison Street for the construction of a medical marijuana cultivation complex including eighteen industrial buildings totaling 255,800 square feet and common parking and security fencing to be located on 14 acres of land at 84-851 Avenue 48, Assessor’s Parcel No’s. 603-232-031, 603-232-033 and 603-232-024 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Architectural Review No. 16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276 (Modification), on June 21, 2023 in the Council Chambers, 1515 Sixth Street, Coachella, California; and WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission, the Applicant and members of the public were present and were afforded an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project is permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.34 of the Coachella Municipal Code and Ordinance 1083; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is consistent with the objectives of the City’s General Plan, and is not detrimental to the existing uses or the uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, the site for proposed use relates properly to streets which are designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; and WHEREAS, the proposed use will have no significant deleterious effect on the environment; and
142
Item 3.

WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and considered for the original proposal pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved and adopted Environmental Assessment No. 16-05 on February 8, 2017 for the original project; and WHEREAS, the proposed Architectural Review No. 16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276 (Modification) clarifies existing project requirements, and would not result in any new project impacts beyond those evaluated in Environmental Assessment No. 16-05.

WHEREAS, the conditions as stipulated by the City are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella, California does hereby approve Architectural Review 16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276 (Modification), subject to the findings listed below and the attached Conditions of Approval for the Coachella Warehouses Project (contained in “Exhibit A” and made a part herein).

Findings for Architectural Review No. 16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276 (Modification):

1. The Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures of the Coachella General Plan 2035. The site has an Industrial District land use designation that allows for industrial development. The proposed structures on the site are in keeping with the policies of the Industrial District land use classification and the Project is internally consistent with other General Plan policies for this type of development.

2. The Modification to the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 276 and Architectural Review No. 16-18 adds language to clarify that street improvement plans shall be prepared and approved prior to the issuance of any additional building permits, and that all street improvements shall be installed and accepted by the City prior to the certificate of occupancy for any additional buildings. Included in this modification is language detailing the required dedications and improvements required of the project including the installation of full curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, lighting and more along Avenue 48 and Harrison Street. The existing conditions of approval for the project do not provide a timeline of when the street improvements need to be installed, and do not provide specific details on the requirements of those street improvements. The proposed modification clarifies the timeline and details of the required street improvements for the Project.

3. Environmental Assessment/Initial Study No. 16-05 was prepared for the original project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and distributed to responsible agencies for review and comment. Based on that Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures therein, it had been 143
Item 3.
determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original project. The project will not have any significant adverse effects on the environment. The proposed modified condition would clarify existing project requirements for street improvements on Avenue 48 and Harrison Street and would not result in any new project impacts beyond those evaluated in Environmental Assessment No. 16-05.

PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June by the following vote:

ROLL CALL: Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstaining:

CITY OF COACHELLA

PLANNING COMMISSION
By
Ruben Gonzalez, Chairperson
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By By
Gabriel Perez Carlos Campos
Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney
144
Item 3.

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE COACHELLA WAREHOUSES
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS No. 276 and ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-18
(Modified Conditions of Approval shown in Bold)
General Conditions:

1. The Architectural Review (AR 16-18) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP 276) are contingent upon City Council approval of the accompanying Development Agreement and shall be valid for 12 months from the effective date of said City Council approvals unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Issuance of building permits and pursuit of construction will vest the Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit. 2 The construction of all new structures shall be in conformance with construction drawings and landscaping plans designed in accordance with the Design Guidelines for the Coachella Warehouses Project and conditions of approval imposed below:
a All exterior building materials and colors shall substantially match the exhibits submitted with the Coachella Warehouses Development applications.
b. Conditional Use Permit No. 276 hereby approves the development of a medical marijuana cultivation complex as shown on the submitted plans totaling 255,800 square feet and common parking, landscaping and security fencing.
c. Conditional Use Permit No. 276 hereby also approves an interim use of (15) fifteen mobile units for cultivation and three (3) mobile units for extraction as shown on the submitted plans as Phase IA. The interim use is limited to the shorter period of either: twelve (12) months from the date mobile unit use operation begins or sixty (60) business days after an occupancy permit is issued for the units to be occupied in the permanent facility by the mobile unit users.
d Pursuant to Ordinance 1084, a Regulatory Permit must be issued by the Coachella City Manager prior to the issuance of grading and or building permits.
e. All fencing or garden walls shall be subject to issuance of a separate building permit by the City Building Division.
f All parking lot lighting for the Project shall be consistent with the architectural design of the Project, as approved by the Development 145
Item 3.
2 Services Director.
g. All masonry perimeter walls and garden walls shall be decorative masonry with decorative cap subject to review by the Development Services Director, and subject to the City's Building Codes.

3. All plans, as shown, are considered "conceptual," subject to revisions as called out by the conditions of this resolution. The plans shall not be stamp-approved until all conditions requesting revisions have been satisfied during the building plan check process. Any substantial changes to the plans, including changes shown on future building permit plans deemed by Staff to not be within substantial conformance with this approval, will require an amendment to the approval of Architectural Review No. 16-18, including architectural features, materials, and site layout.

4. The project shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations, regardless of whether they are listed in these conditions. This includes conformance with the requirements of the adopted U.B.C., U.P.C., U.M.C., N.E.C., including all requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Riverside County Fire Department and any requirements by any other agency having jurisdiction on the project.

5. The applicant will agree to defend and indemnify the City of Coachella against all claims, actions, damages, and losses, including attorney fees and costs, in the event that anyone files legal challenges to the approval of this project on the basis of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute a standard indemnification agreement subject to review by the City Attorney.

6. All plan submittals are the responsibility of the developer; this includes plan submittals to the City of Coachella, the Riverside County Fire Department or to other agencies for whom plan review and approval is required.

Mitigation Measures -Air Quality:

7. As required by SCAQMD for all development projects in the Salton Sea Air Basin that would disturb one-acre or greater, Best Available Control Measures will be incorporated into a PM-10 Dust Control Plan prepared for the project prior to commencement of site grading or other construction activity where soil disturbance or other fugitive dust may be generated. BACMs are listed at the end of the MMRP.

Mitigation Measures -Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

8. Prior to any land disturbance, including grading or construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to demolition, an asbestos inspection of onsite structures shall be conducted by a qualified professional in accordance with currently accepted methods and 146
Item 3.
3 protocols. The inspection shall include, but not be limited to visual inspection, sampling, and laboratory analysis for the presence of asbestos products, including asbestos-containing material (ACM) and asbestos-containing construction material (ACCM). Polarized Light Microscopy and other methods consistent with the US EOA 600 method shall be applied to this investigation. A comprehensive report that documents methods, findings, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or recommendationsshall be provided to the City.
b) Prior to demolition, a lead-based paint inspection of onsite structures shall be conducted by a qualified professional in accordance with currently accepted methods and protocols. Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, as well as OSHA Lead Exposure in Construction, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Section 1926. The inspection shall include, but not be limited to visual inspection, sampling, and analysis of materials suspected of containing lead paint or other lead-based materials and coatings. A comprehensive report that documents methods, findings, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or recommendations shall be provided to the City.
c) Prior to the start of any activity that might disturb materials potentially containing asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, a qualified and licensed contractor shall be hired to complete necessary abatement procedures. All demolition and other project related actions that might potentially disturb hazardous materials shall be performed by properly trained and qualified personnel. Remediation actions are expected to include but will not be limited to the following:

1. Each part of the building from which asbestos is being removed shall, as appropriate, be sealed off in order to prevent contamination of the other area.

Methods of area containment may include polyethylene film, duct tape, negative air pressure machines and other appropriate means depending on the type of asbestos materials encountered.

2. Specially designed vacuum cleaners that are designed for asbestos containment (class H) can be safely used when cleaning up during and after asbestos removal.

3. Removed asbestos and materials with embedded or coated with asbestos shall, as appropriate, be double wrapped in plastic and driven to a landfill. d) If surficial or buried materials within the project site are found to contain potentially hazardous materials (such as: asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and mercury or PCB-containing material) such materials shall be removed properly prior to any further site disturbance in the affected area, and disposed of at appropriate landfills or recycled, in accordance with the regulatory guidance provided in California Code of Regulation (CCR) and following the requirements ofthe Universal Waste Rule (40 CFR part 9).
147
Item 3.
4 e) During project construction and implementation, the handling, storage, transport, and disposal of all chemicals, including herbicides and pesticides, runoff, hazardous materials and waste used on, or at, the project site, shall be in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. f) Vapor Encroachment Screening shall be conducted in accordance with the ASTM Standard E2600-10 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions to identify the likelihood of migrating vapors to encroach on the subject property, thereby creating a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC). A complete report of findings and recommended mitigation measures, if any, shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
g) A vapor intrusion risk evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with most recent version of the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control 's "Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air" to identify the likelihood of vapor intrusion into future buildings and potential impacts on indoor air quality. A complete report of findings and recommended mitigation measures, if any, shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
h) Butane extraction in both the interim and the permanent facilities shall be subject to the following requirements:

1. The City shall engage, at the applicant's expense, a qualified engineer or certified industrial hygienist to review and certify the plans for all components of the butane extraction process, including storage areas and quantities of butane to be stored, electrical systems, extraction machinery, gas monitoring equipment, extraction room ventilation, fire suppression systems and fireproofing of equipment and structures, consistent with current building, fire and electrical codes specific to this process. No building permits shall be issued, and no occupancy of the interim buildings permitted prior to written certification by the engineer.

2. The applicant shall provide the City with copies of permits required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, or a written confirmation that no permits are necessary.

3. The applicant shall satisfy all requirements of the Fire Department relating to construction, operation, and emergency response. No building permits shall be issued, and no occupancy of the interim buildings shall be permitted prior to written approval by the Fire Department.

Mitigation Measures -Cultural Resources:

9. Approved Native American monitor(s) from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indian shall be present during any 148
Item 3.
5 ground disturbing activities. Should human remains be uncovered, the Riverside County Coroner's Office shall be immediately contacted and all work halted until final disposition by the Coroner. Health Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Shall the remains be detennined to be of Native American descent, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to determine the appropriate disposition of said remains.

10. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent and may be Native American, in accordance with Public Resource Code 5097.94, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of the find. The NAHC will then determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD).The City will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the human remains.

Mitigation Measures-Traffic and Transportation:

II. The applicant shall pay applicable City of Coachella Development Impact Fees (DIF) and County of Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) in effect at that time.
12 Five (5) sets of copies of check prints. The applicant shall pay all necessary plan check, permit, and inspection fees. Fees will be determined when plans are submitted to the CityEngineering Department for plan check.

13. The applicant shall pay plan check fees of $750.00 per sheet of improvement plans, and $350.00 for PM 10 plan.

Engineering -Grading and Drainage:

14.. A precise grading/improvement plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any pennits. A final soils report, compaction report and rough grading certificate shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.

15. A Drainage Report, prepared by California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits. The report shall contain a Hydrology Map showing on-site and off-site tributary drainage areas and shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Adequate provisions shall be made to accept and conduct the existing tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

If the design of the project includes a retention basin, it shall be sized to contain the runoffresulting from a 10-year storm event and the runoff from a 100-year storm 149
Item 3.
6 event shall be contained within basin with shallow pending (3.5' max.). The basin shall be designed to evacuate a 10-year storm event within 72 hours. The size ofthe retention basin(s) shall be determined by the hydrology report and be approved by the City Engineer. Retention basin shall be provided with a minimum of2.00 feet sandy soil if determined to contain silt or clay materials. Maximum allowable percolation rate for design shall be 10 gal./s.f./day unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A percolation test for this site is required to be submitted. A combination drywell vertical drain field shall be constructed at all points where runoff enters the retention basin. Drywell & vertical drain field design shall be based on soils borings made at the proposed drywelllocations after the retention basins have been rough graded. Minimum depth shall be 45-feet. A log that includes sieve analysis for each strata of the borings shall be submitted to the City Engineer for confirmation of depth of the vertical drain fields. Underground retention under the proposed parking area will be considered as an alternative to surface retention subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

16. Site access improvements shall be in conformance with the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. This shall include access ramps for off-site and on- site streets as required.

17. Applicant shall obtain approval of site access and circulation from Fire Marshall.

18. If applicant is planning to build a wall, separate permits shall be required for wall construction. The maximum height of any wall shall be limited to six (6) feet as measured from an average of the ground elevations on either side.

Engineering -Street Improvements:

19. Street improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for engineering plan check prior to issuance of encroachment permits.

All street improvements including streetlights shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City Standards and Specifications. Street flow line grade shall have a minimum slope of 0.35 percent.

20. Applicant shall construct all off-site and on-site improvements including street pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, perimeter walls, perimeter landscaping and irrigation, storm drain, street lights, and any other incidental works necessary to complete the improvements. Driveways shall conform to City of Coachella standard for commercial driveways with a minimum width of 24.00 feet and curbed radius entrances. Street improvement plans shall more specifically conform with the following:
a. Street improvement plans shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any additional building permits.
b. All Street improvements shall be installed and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy of any additional buildings. c. Dedication of land along the east bound lane of Avenue 48 and the south bound lane of Harrison Street shall be required along the frontage of Parcel “C” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No. 2023-2. Avenue 48 from the 150
Item 3.
7 Center line to the northerly property line shall have a width of 40 feet. Harrison Street from the Center line to the easterly property line shall also have a width of 40 feet.
d. On Avenue 48, full curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, lighting, etc. shall be completed from the northwest corner of Parcel “C” to the intersection of Harrison Street and Avenue 48, including all off site frontage work adjacent to Parcels “A” and “B” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No 2023-2. Street paving and striping transition work shall extend westerly from the northwest property corner a distance of not less than 200 feet to accomplish standard lane transitioning.
e. On Harrison Street, full curb, gutter sidewalk, landscape, lighting improvements, etc. shall be completed from the Southeast corner of Parcel “C” to the intersection of Harrison Street and Avenue 48, including all off site frontage work adjacent to Parcels “A” as shown on Lot Line Adjustment No 2023-2. Street paving and striping transition work shall extend southerly from the southeast property corner a distance of not less than 200 feet to accomplish standard lane transitioning.

21. Avenue 48 is classified as a local industrial street with a right-of-way of 74 feet per the City of Coachella General Plan 2035. Harrison Street is classified as an Industrial Collector with a right-of-way of 80 feet per the City of Coachella General Plan 2035. Dimensions for dedication of land will be provided in first submittal of engineering plan check.

22. Water and Sewer connection and capacity fees must be paid m the Building Department prior to construction.

23. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any improvements constructed within public right-of-way including alleys.

Engineering-Sewer and Water Improvements

24. Sewer & Water Improvement Plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for engineering plan check and City Engineer approval.

Engineering -General:

25. Prior to issuance of any encroachment permits by the City of Coachella, the applicant shall resolve CVWD issues related to existing tile drains or irrigation mains located within the project boundary or along the streets adjacent to the property. If necessary tile drains and irrigation lines shall be relocated, and easement document prepared for the new location of any such lines. Plans for the tile drain or irrigation relocation shall be submitted to the City for evaluation regarding possible conflict with City facilities. The applicant shall submit to the City approved copies of any relocation plans. If the above referenced CVWD facilities do not need to be relocated as part of the project, they can remain as easements provided approved by CVWD.
151
Item 3.
8 26. The developer shall submit a Fugitive Dust Control and Erosion Control plan in accordance with Guidelines set forth by CMC and SCAQMD to maintain wind and drainage erosion and dust control for all areas disturbed by grading. Exact method(s) of such control shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. No sediment is to leave the site. Additional securities in amount of $2,000 per acre of gross area, and a one-time cash deposit of $2,000.00 are required to insure compliance with this requirement. No work may be started on or off site unless the PM-10 plan has been approved and the original plans are in the engineering department at the City of Coachella.

27. The applicant shall pay all necessary plan check, permit and inspection fees. Fees will be determined when plans are submitted to the City Engineering Department for plan check. All off-site and on-site improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of improvements for maintenance by the City.

28. Applicant shall comply with the valley wide NPDES permit requirements including but not limited to submittal of a preliminary WQMP for plan review accompanied by a $3,000 plan check deposit and a Final WQMP for final approval including executed maintenance agreement. All unused plan check fees will be refunded to the applicant upon approval of the Final WQMP.

Completion

29. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, such plans, once approved, shall be given to the city on compact disk in AutoCAD format.

30. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all public improvements, including landscaping and lighting of retention basins, and landscaped areas along the exterior streets, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An engineering final inspection is required.

Development Services -Landscaping:

31. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and approval. Said plans shall conform to the landscaping plan submitted as part of the subject Architectural Review, and as conditioned herein.

32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City's Engineering Department and Development Services Department.

33. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in accordance with Section

17.54.010(1) of the Municipal Code and in accordance with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881). Water budget calculations, including the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use 152
Item 3.
9 (ETWU)shall be provided as part of the landscaping and irrigation plan. ·

34. The landscape plan shall provide for a minimum 5-gallon groundcover plants, 5- gallon shrubs, and 24-inch box trees. The plants and trees shall be irrigated with an automatic and durable drip irrigation system.

35. Landscaped areas shall be dressed with a minimum 2-inch layer of compacted and/or glue- bonded decomposed granite that cannot be wind driven. A weed barrier underlayment shall be placed under the decomposed granite.

36. Plant materials selection should be represented by symbols that show the plants at 75% of their mature size.

37. The applicant shall obtain written clearance from the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office regarding the type of landscaping to be planted. The clearance letter shall be included as a note on the landscape plans. The applicant shall utilize only plants that were listed on the landscape plan submitted to the Commissioner's office. Any substitutions must be approved by both the Commissioner's office as well asthe City's Development Services Department.

38. Six-inch concrete bands shall be used as mow strip borders for planting areas where separating turf areas or synthetic turf areas.

39. All landscape planter beds in interior parking areas shall be not less than five (5) feet in width and bordered by a concrete curb not less than six (6) inches nor more than eight (8) inches in height adjacent to the parking surface.

40. All non-landscaped and undeveloped areas of the site shall be kept free of weeds and debris and shall be treated with a dust-preventative ground coating.

41. For the interim facility, 36-inch box trees shall be placed along the Harrison Street frontage, 20-25 feet on center, as shown on the exhibit titled Phase IA, Interim Use Facilities Plan, as approved by the Development Services Director and shall remain in place until the Interim Use ceases operation.

Development Services- Project Design:

42. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all exterior architectural features and treatments shall be consistent with the submitted Architectural Review No. 16-18 elevations and color/material board samples and shall be included and noted on all construction plans and elevations, subject to review and approval.

43. All exposed metal flashing, downspouts, or utility cabinets shall be painted to match the building prior to final inspection.

44. Trash enclosures installed for the project shall be compatible architecturally with the building and include storage areas for recycling containers. The enclosure shall be constructed to Burrtec Waste Management Standards. Both Burrtec Waste Management and the City Engineer shall approve the location of the trash enclosure. 153
Item 3.
10 45. All roof mounted mechanical equipment, except solar panels,shall be view obscured by a parapet wall greater in height than the equipment installed. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be view obscured by landscaping or enclosure.

46. Outdoor storage areas shall be obscured from public view and specifically shall not be visible from Avenue 48 and Harrison Street.

Riverside Countv Fire Department:

Adverse Impacts

47. The proposed project will have a cumulative impact on the Fire Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts include an increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, traffic and population. The project proponents/developers will be expected to provide for a proportional mitigation to these impacts via capital improvements and/or development impact fees.

Access

48. Fire department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Coachella Municipal Code, Riverside County Ordinance 787, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards.

Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.

49. Two points of access shall be provided at opposite ends of the proposed development.

Access shall be provided to allow for ingress and egress of emergency vehicles at each of the proposed entry and exit points. Vehicle access points shall be designed to accommodate the turning radius of fire apparatus and the deployment of hose lines. In addition, onsite access shall be provided to all portions of the buildings during suppression and rescue operations to ensure firefighter safety. Fire Department apparatus access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all portions of all buildings.

Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes, and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs.

Water

50. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, Coachella Municipal Code and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow.

51. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the required water system, including all fire 154
Item 3.
11 hydrant(s), shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency and the Riverside County Fire Department prior to any combustible building materials placed on an individual lot. Contact the Riverside County Fire Department to inspect the required fire flow, street signs, and the required all weather surface access roadways.

52. Fire Flow: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering fire flows required by California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department standards.

53. Fire Hydrants: Provide fire hydrants within 400 feet of all portions of all structures and spaced in accordance with the California Fire Code.

54. Knox Rapid Entry System: All gates and buildings shall be equipped with a Knox Rapid Entry System. Contact the Riverside County Fire Department for details.

55. Fire Sprinkler Systems: Riverside County Ordinance 787requires fire sprinkler systems in buildings and structures 3,600 square feet and larger. Provide fire sprinkler systems in accordance with the California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department standards. Fire sprinkler systems must be installed per NFPA 13. A C-16 licensed contractor must submit plans along with the current permit fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 0

56. Fire Sprinkler Monitoring Systems: Install a sprinkler monitoring system as required by the California Fire Code. A C-10 licensed contractor must submit plans along with the current permit fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation.

57. Building Address Numbers: Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of buildings and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12" in height for buildings up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers.All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 0

58. Hazmat review: This project has not been reviewed for the use,storage, or handling of hazardous materials. The use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials requires separate review and approval.

59. Shell Building Only: These conditions are for a shell building only. No fire and life safety clearance will be issued for a tenant space until the specific occupancy classification has been established and building plans have been reviewed and conditioned by the Riverside County Fire Department.

60. As with any additional construction within a response area, a "cumulative" increase in requests for service will add to the Fire Department's ability to provide service. The
proposed project identifies 14.61 acres of land and 256,200 square feet of Industrial/warehouse use at build out. The
proposed development will a significant impact on the fire department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. The applicant and development team will work in close coordination with the lead agency and the fire department to incorporate
155
Item 3.
12 mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.

61. Based on the current availability of fire resources within the City of Coachella, the city would be heavily dependent on outside resources from the surrounding communities in the event of any significant emergency incident at the proposed development. In those situations, it would be anticipated that fire department resources from The City of La Quinta and The City of Indio would respond.

The 3 nearest Fire Stations that would respond to an incident are:

Station# 86 (Indio) 46-990 Jackson Street, Indio, CA 92201 Station# 79 (Coachella) 1377 6th Street, Coachella, CA 92236 Station# 87 (Terra Lago) 42900 Golf Center Parkway, Indio, CA 92201 From the above listed fire stations, the first unit would arrive within 6 minutes after dispatch, the second within 7 minutes and the third within 9 minutes. These response times are approximate to the proposed development.

62. Further review of the project will occur upon receipt of the· building and required fire plan submittals.The Fire Department will review the project site plan to ensure it meets applicable fire standards and regulations. Additional requirements may be necessary at that time.

Imperial Irrigation District:

63. Any construction or operation on IID property or within its existing and proposed right-of- way or easements will require an encroachment permit, including but not limited to: surface improvements such as proposed new streets, driveways, parking lots, landscape; and all water, sewer, storm water, or any other above ground or underground utilities (e.g. power lines).

64. Any and all mitigation necessary as a result of the construction, relocation and/or upgrade of IID facilities is the responsibility of the project proponent.

Utilities:

65. Water and sewer plans outside the buildings and interior plumbing or mechanical plans (i.e. floor drains and sinks, equipment which discharges to the sewer system, chemical storage and spill containment measures) shall be provided to the City Utilities Department for review and approval.

66. A Source Control "Short Form" (and the Source Control application if required) shall be completed and turned into Source Control (Utilities Department) by the applicant.

67. Based on findings of the Source Control application, all modifications shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

68. Adequate fire protection shall be included and the public water supply shall be 156
Item 3.
13 protected with a DCDA or greater on all fire water lines to commercial/industrial facilities.

69. An RP shall be correctly installed within 12" of all water meters servicing domestic usage, landscape, commercial and/or industrial facilities.

70. All landscaping shall be on a separate water meter with an RP ensuring the establishment is not assessed sewer fees for water used on landscape.

71. All mechanical and plumbing plans shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for review to determine if pretreatment and/or a sample location is required.

72. All facilities and landscape plumbing which have water or wastewater (sewer) services shall obtain approval from the Environmental Compliance (Source Control), Water and Sanitary Sewer Divisions prior to receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy.

73. Fire hydrants must be at the end of each dead end for flushing.

74. RPZ Style Backflow devices shall be installed on commercial and landscape meters. 75 Above ground DCDA backflows must be installed for all fire line services.

76. Master-metered, radio-read water meters shall be utilized for the project.

77. Domestic and fire service backflow meter devices must be in utility right of way.

Fees:

78. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay all Development Fees to the City; this also includes school fees and outside agency fees such as sewer water and utilities. Copies of receipts shall be provided to the Development Services Department prior to permit issuance.

79. The applicant shall be responsible for paying all applicable development and processing (plan check, inspection, etc.) fees associated with this project.

80. The applicant shall pay all applicable school impact fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District prior to the issuance of a building permit.

81. The applicant shall pay all required water connection fees.

82. The applicant shall be required to pay the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation (MSHCP) fees for industrial development prior to issuance of building permits.

83. The applicant shall comply with the City's Art in Public Places Ordinance. If the applicant elects to pay in-lieu art fees, then the fees shall be deposited into the Public Arts Fund at an amount of (1) One-half (1/2) of one percent (1%) for new commercial and industrial construction.
157
Item 3.
14 84. The project is subject to payment of all industrial development impact fees whether or not explicitly stated in other conditions of approval or the environmental mitigation measures for the subject project.

Miscellaneous:

85. Installation of sidewalks along Avenue 48 and Harrison Street may be satisfied by an improvement agreement subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

86. Final design plans for proposed landscaping and fencing along the project street frontages shall be presented as an administrative item before the Planning Commission for final review and approval.

87. No grading and or building permits shall be issued until the Development Agreement has been approved by the City Council and is in effect. 158
Item 3.

DECEMBER 21, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 10B

COACHELLA WAREHOUSES
1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP 276) to allow a 255,800 multi-tenant industrial park for use as a medical cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facility on 14 acres of developed land in the M-W (Wrecking Yard) zone located at 84-851 Avenue 48.
2) Architectural Review (AR 16-18) to allow the construction of a 255,800 square foot industrial business park, to be used as a medical cannabis cultivation facility, including an interim medical cannabis manufacturing complex with modular offices and mobile laboratories during the construction phase of the project.
3) Review of the Coachella Warehouses- Development Agreement to set mutual benefits and obligations between the landowner and the City of Coachella. 4) Environmental Assessment (EA 16-05)) recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 159
Item 3.

Project Location
160
Item 3.

Aerial Photograph
161
Item 3.

Site Photographs
162
Item 3.
163
Item 3.

General Plan
164
Item 3.

Zoning
165
Item 3.

City of Indio General Plan/Zoning
166
Item 3.

Coachella Warehouses Site Plan
167
Item 3.

Project Summary
• 18 Cultivation Buildings
• 12- 14,000 sq. ft. buildings
• 5-12,200 sq. ft. buildings
• 1-7000 sq. ft. building
• 1 16,000 sq. ft. Processing Building
• 1 4000 sq. ft. Supply Center and
Employee Lounge
• 255,800 square feet total
• 240 Employees at build out
• Parking Required: 257 with 18 ADA
• Parking Provided: 307 with 32 ADA
168
Item 3.

Proposed Phasing
169
Item 3.

Phase 1A
170
Item 3.

Phase 1A
Interim Facility
15 8x40 Grow Containers
3 8x40 Extraction Containers
Portable Restrooms
Portable Trailer
Security Fencing
36 inch box trees along
Harrison Street (temporary)
Driveway Approach and
security gates along Harrison
171
Item 3.

Phase 1
Westerly 6 acres
Construction of 9
buildings totaling
109,000 sq. ft.

Street Improvements to
Avenue 48 and Harrison
Street.

Construction of Block
Walls
Installation of Phase 1
landscaping
172
Item 3.

Phase 2
Southerly 5 acres
Construction of 7
buildings totaling 98,000
sq. ft.

Driveway and Security
gates along Harrison
Street.

Installation of Phase 2
landscaping
173
Item 3.

Phase 3A
Adaptive Reuse of
Existing Buildings
Northerly 3.6 acres
New building facades to
incorporate design
theme for total project.

New parking and
landscaping
New security gates and
fencing
AJAX business operates
out of building 3 and
within auto storage area
174
Item 3.

Phase 3
Northerly 3.6
acres
Construction of 4
buildings totaling 48,000
sq. ft.
2 new Driveway
approaches to be
constructed along
Avenue 48 and Harrison
Street.

New Drive Aisles,
Parking Facilities, and
Fire Lanes
Complete landscaping
for Phase 3
175
Item 3.

Aerial
Simulation
The project is arranged
in a campus style layout
with common community
and processing
functions located at the
center of the complex
facing a community
garden.

This image illustrates
the existing 3 buildings
at Avenue 48 and
Harrison Street that will
be remodeled and
repurposed at phase 3A
and removed at phase

3. 176
Item 3.

Project Main
Entry
Looking south at the
main entrance including
the security building,
security gates,
community garden and
the processing building
located directly behind
the main entry.
177
Item 3.

Proposed
Architecture
Exterior building materials:
upgraded metal panel
system in two shades of
muted gray constructed on
top of a multi-hued concrete
block wainscot.

Varying height and depth
parapet walls extend above
the roof line to screen the
solar panel system.

The majority of mechanical,
heating, ac and climate
control will be located in the
interior of the building above
the ceiling. AC compressors
will be placed between the
buildings at ground level.

A low-E glazed clear
anodized aluminum door and
glazing system will be
utilized throughout the
project.
178
Item 3.

View at entry court/garden area
179
Item 3.

Proposed
Landscape
Plan
Street trees include
“Shoestring Acacia”
along with “Southern
Live Oak.” Interior trees
include: “Acacia Mulga”.

Shrubs include: “Lynns
Legacy, Rio Bravo, Little
John Bottlebrush, Texas
Ranger, Natal Plum,
Century Plant, Valentine
Bush, Desert Cassia,
Rosenka and Tuttlei.

Groundcover includes
New Gold Lantana
180
Item 3.

Southern Live Oak
Acacia Mulga
Shoestring Acacia
181
Item 3.

Development Agreement
The Development Agreement proposes to vest the
development rights of the project between the Applicant and the City. The highlights of the Development Agreement include the following:

1. A seven (7) year term

2. Allows the interim operation for a 12 month period
during construction of the main project

3. Imposes fees on the Project including Production fee consisting of a Cultivation fee and Manufacturing fee
and a Facility Fee.
182
Item 3.

Development Agreement Details
• 1. Production Fee: Paid Quarterly
• 4% of gross receipts of any operator engaged in
cultivation at the Project and 2% of the gross receipts on any operator engaged in manufacturing at the Project
and:
• 2. Facility Fee: Paid Annually
• $15 per square foot on the first 20,000 square feet of the facility and $7.50 per square foot for the balance of the facility.
• At full build out, the anticipated annual revenue to the City’s General fund is in excess of $2 million dollars. 183
Item 3.

INFRASTRUCTURE
• Water and Sewer : Both are available at the site
• Electricity: At project build out, this facility requires 9 megawatts of power. • IID has issued a “will serve” letter for 2 megawatts. In addition, IID has issued a “will serve” letter for an adjacent project that is now co-developing on this site for 2 megawatts for a total commitment of 4 megawatts. • Rooftop solar panels will generate 3.5 megawatts of power. • Other short term options include: using power previously committed for the CTI project (2-5 megawatts); construction of a temporary substation (12 megawatts).
• Long term solutions include the construction of one or two permanent substations to serve this area. • Discussions between IID, the City, project applicants and property owners are on-going.
184
Item 3.

Environmental Assessment 16-05
• An Initial Study was prepared for the project and found that the project would not result in any significant impacts. • A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was circulated from November 21, 2016 to
December 12, 2016. 4 comment letters were submitted: 1
from IID; 1 from CVWD; 1 from the Twenty-Nine Palms
Band of Mission Indians; 1 from the Aqua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians.
• A Mitigation Monitoring Report (MMRP) has been
prepared and is recommended for adoption.
185
Item 3.

Recommendations
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Coachella Warehouses project by adopting the
attached draft Resolutions.
• 1) Resolution No. PC 2016-15- acknowledging the
environmental documents and recommending to the City
Council the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )
Guidelines.
• 2) Resolution No. PC 2016-14 approving Architectural
Review No.16-18 and Conditional Use Permit 276.
• 3) Resolution No. PC 2016-16 recommending to the City Council approval of the Development Agreement 186
Item 3.

STAFF REPORT
6/21/2023
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 23-03 and Environmental Assessment No. 23-03 “General Plan Addendum Project” Establishment of General Plan land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the City of Coachella General Plan Planning Area in the certified 2015 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but for which no General Plan land use designation was identified.

The three areas include: (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area). (Applicant: City-Initiated)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-18 adopting an addendum to the Coachella General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), finding and determining that additional environmental review is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162.

2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-17 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 23-02 approving text modifications to Chapter 4 Land Use and Community Character Element and a change to Figure 4-23 of the General Plan 2035 Land Use and Community Character Element, entitled “General Plan Designation Map.” BACKGROUND:

The City Council adopted the Coachella General Plan 2035 on April 22, 2015, that established the goals, policies, and implementation strategies that will implement the vision for the City of Coachella along with the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan 2035 also included a new adopted General Plan Land Use Map, which included the establishment of new General Plan Land Use designations for land within the City and within the Planning Area of the City of Coachella. Government Code 65300 requires that every city and county adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan” and the general plan must cover a city’s planning area. 187
Item 4.

The Planning Area of the General Plan is the territory within the boundaries of the City as well as any land outside its boundaries, which the City determines is related to its future planning. The State of California General Plan 2017 Guidelines state that when establishing a planning area, that each city should consider using its sphere of influence as a starting point and build off of that area.

The Coachella General Plan Update established a Planning Area beyond its sphere of influence into unincorporated areas of Riverside County. General Plan land use designations were established for the existing sphere of influence areas of the City, but not for the planning areas outside the sphere of influence.

The Planning Division engaged the professional services of Raimi + Associates to assist in preparation of General Plan land use designations for the Planning Areas outside of the City of Coachella sphere of influence (see figure 1) that includes (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area). Establishing general plan land use designation for these areas would be consistent with the City’s past practice in previous general plan updates of establishing general plan land uses for the entirety of the City’s Planning Area. Adopting the general plan land use designations for these areas would allow the City to amend its sphere of influence with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the agency that regulates local public agency boundaries. LAFCO requires cities to establish general plan land use designations as a prerequisite for areas proposed for sphere of influence amendments. Currently, the P7 Western Project Area and Southern Project Area are in no other city sphere of influence.

Figure 1: General Plan Map identifying Planning Areas with no general plan land use 188
Item 4.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

General Plan Updates
The General Plan land uses identified for the three subject planning areas are existing City of Coachella general plan land uses that are most closely align with the existing Riverside County General Plan land use designations. Figure 2 identifies the proposed general plan land use designations for the Northern, Western and Southern project areas.

Figure 2: City of Coachella proposed amendment to General Plan Map identifying a General Plan land use for undesignated planning areas
Western Project Area
The Western project area, also known as P7 by LAFCO, is predominately Estate Density Residential (EDR) in the Riverside County General Plan Map, which allows for a residential density of 0.2-0.5 dwelling units an acre. Allowed uses for this land use designation include detached single-family homes, limited agriculture and animal keeping. The parcel at the northeast corner of Jackson Street and Avenue 52 is the location of Forest Lawn CV business and has a land use designation of Commercial Retail (CR). The Commercial Retail (CR) land use has a Floor Area Ratio requirement of 0.2-0.35 and allows local and regional serving retail uses. Planning staff recommends that a new General Plan land use designation, Estate Rancho, be established for 189
Item 4.
this area for consistency with the County’s Estate Density Residential general plan designation. A Estate Rancho land use designation would allow for a residential density of 1.0-2.2 dwelling units an acre and would allow for single-family dwellings, limited agriculture, and animal keeping under the consistent (R-E) Residential Estate zoning district. Establishment of the Estate Rancho designation would involve inclusion of the new land use on the Official City of Coachella General Plan map and within the text of the General Plan Update 2035 Land Use and Community Character Element. The R-E zone allows clubs and lodges, golf courses, and schools with approval of a conditional use permit. Planning staff also recommend that the City’s Suburban Retail general plan land use designation be applied to the Forest Lawn CV parcel with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 and allows a range of local and regional serving retail uses with the consistent General Commercial zoning district.

Figure 3: Proposed City of Coachella General Plan Land Use for Western Project Area (P7) Northern Project Area
The Northern project area is predominately Open Space Rural (OS-RUR) and Public Facilities (PF) in the Riverside County General Plan Map. The Open Space Rural (OS-RUR) land use allows for a residential density of .05 dwelling units an acre and allows single family residences and limited mineral resource extraction. The Public Facilities (PF) land use allows a floor area equal of greater than .06 and allows civic uses and school. The area of the Public Facilities designation is the location of the Coachella Valley Transfer Station. Planning staff recommends that the City’s Agricultural Rancho general plan land use be applied to the areas with the Open Space Rural 190
Item 4.

County general plan land use designation, as staff believes this most closely aligns with the County general plan land use designation. Agricultural Rancho allows for a residential density of .025 dwelling units an acre or 1 unit/parcel, whichever is smaller. This designation also would allow for primarily agricultural uses and parks under the corresponding (A-R) Agricultural Reserve zoning district.

Figure 4: Proposed City of Coachella General Plan Land Use for Northern Project Area Southern Project Area
The Southern project area is predominately Agriculture (AG) in the Riverside County General Plan Map and land uses associated with the Panorama Specific Plan, which was a master planned development plan to support the future development of the College of the Desert East Valley Campus. County land uses in the Panorama Specific Plan include Open Space Recreation, Medium High Density Residential, Very High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, Commercial Office, and Public Facilities. The Agriculture land use allows for a maximum residential density of 0.1 dwelling units an acre and allows agricultural uses and single-family residences. Planning staff recommends that the City’s Agricultural Rancho general plan land use be applied to the areas with the Agriculture (AG) County land use designation, as staff believes this most closely aligns with the County designation. Agricultural Rancho allows for a residential density of 0.025 dwelling units an acre or 1 unit/parcel, whichever is smaller. Agricultural Rancho 191
Item 4.
allows for a residential density of 0.025 dwelling units an acre or 1 unit/parcel, whichever is smaller. This designation also would allow for primarily agricultural uses and parks under the consistent (A-R) Agricultural Reserve zoning district. Planning staff recommends that the Coachella General Plan identify the Panorama Specific Plan area similar to other approved specific plans in the City limits where the land uses of the specific plans would be applicable.

Figure 5: Proposed City of Coachella General Plan Land Use for Southern Project Area ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City has determined that analyses of project environmental effects are best provided through use of an Addendum and that none of the conditions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have been met. 1) There are no substantial changes to the project that would require major revisions of the certified 2015 Program EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the 2015 Program EIR; 2) Substantial changes have not occurred in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the certified 2015 Program EIR to disclose new significant environmental effects or that would result in a substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the 2015 Program EIR; and 3) There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the 2015 Program EIR was certified, indicating any of the following:
192
Item 4.
 The project will have one or more new significant effects not discussed in the 2015 Program EIR;
 There are impacts determined to be significant in the 2015 Program EIR that would be substantially more severe;
 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the 2015 Program EIR; and
 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives rejected by the project proponent that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR that would substantially reduce a significant impact identified in that EIR.

The complete evaluation of potential environmental effects of the project, including rationale and facts supporting the City’s findings, is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Addendum (Attachment 1).

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-18 adopting an addendum to the Coachella General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), finding and determining that additional environmental review is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162; Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-17 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 23-02 approving text modifications to Chapter 4 Land Use and Community Character Element and a change to Figure 4-23 of the General Plan 2035 Land Use and Community Character Element, entitled “General Plan Designation Map.” 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-18 adopting and addendum to the Coachella General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Finding and determine that additional environmental review is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162; Adopt Resolution No.

PC2023-17 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 23-02 approving text modifications to Chapter 4 Land Use and Community Character Element and a change to Figure 4-23 of the General Plan 2035 Land Use and Community Character Element, entitled “General Plan Designation Map” with amendments. 3) Recommend denial of Resolution No. PC2023-18 and Resolution No. PC2023-17. 4) Continue this item and provide staff with direction.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S):

Staff recommends Alternative #1 as noted above.

Attachment:

1. Resolution No. PC2023-18, EA No. 23-03 Addendum
Exhibit A – Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan (SCH No: 2009021007) for the General Plan Addendum Project

2. Resolution No. PC2023-17, General Plan Amendment No. 23-03 Exhibit A – City of Coachella General Plan 2035 GPA No. 23-03 text modifications – Chapter 4 Land Use and Community Character Element Exhibit B – City of Coachella General Plan Map Amendments (GPA No. 23- 03)
193
Item 4.

3. Existing City of Coachella General Plan Map

4. Western Project Area Proposed Land Use Map (Zoomed In)

5. Northern Project Area Proposed Land Use Map (Zoomed In)

6. Southern Project Area Proposed Land Use Map (Zoomed In)

7. City of Coachella General Plan 2035
https://www.coachella.org/departments/general-plan-2035 194
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE COACHELLA PLANNING COMMISION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN

ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF THE
CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (SCH #
2009021007) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-03 TO
AMEND THE CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN 2035 AND

THE CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN MAP GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THREE AREAS EVALUATED

AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA IN THE
CERTIFIED 2015 PROGRAM ENVRIONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

BUT FOR WHICH NO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
WAS IDENTIFIED. APPLICANT: CITY-INITIATED
WHEREAS, the City of Coachella initiated General Plan Amendment No. 23-03 for a land use designation amendments, along with Environmental Assessment No. 23-03, (collectively the “Project Approvals”), to establish General Plan land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the City of Coachella General Plan Planning Area in the certified 2015 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but for which no General Plan land use designation was identified. The three areas include: (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area).

WHEREAS, in 2015, the City of Coachella (“City”) adopted a General Plan Update to guide development and provide a basis for decision-making for the City through 2035; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), in 2015 the City certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“CGPU EIR”) (SCH # 2009021007), in connection with the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been certified or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) has been adopted, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 require additional environmental review; and
195
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, by way of preparation of an Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein, the City has evaluated the Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162; and
WHEREAS, based on that analysis which included a comparison of anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project with those disclosed in the 2015 Certified EIR to review whether any conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met, the Planning Commission does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR because there is no possibility for new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined an Addendum to the certified CGPU EIR should therefore be prepared for the Project’s proposed minor technical changes; and WHEREAS, the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein, to the certified CGPU EIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (c), the Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be attached to the certified CGPU EIR; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project, as modified and the related environmental documents, at which time during the hearing members of the public were given an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, after said public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COACHELLA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as findings of fact.

SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum to the CGPU EIR, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. The addendum compares anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project with those disclosed in the 2015 Certified EIR to review whether any conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met. The Planning Commission finds adequacy in the CEQA documents and finds that the 196
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

Addendum to the CGPU EIR and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum to the CGPU EIR, as shown in “Exhibit A” attached and made a part hereto, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Coachella’s Local CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. Findings on the Necessity for a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Based on substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the CGPU EIR, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that, based on the whole record before it, none of the conditions under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred because the Project:

1. There are no substantial changes to the project that would require major revisions of the certified 2015 Program EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the 2015 Program EIR;

2. Substantial changes have not occurred in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the certified 2015 Program EIR to disclose new significant environmental effects or that would result in a substantial increase in severity of impacts identified in the 2015 Program EIR; and

3. There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the 2015 Program EIR was certified, indicating any of the following:

4. The project will have one or more new significant effects not discussed in the 2015 Program EIR;
 There are impacts determined to be significant in the 2015 Program EIR that would be substantially more severe;
 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the 2015 Program EIR; and
 There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives rejected by the project proponent that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR that would substantially reduce a significant impact identified in that EIR.

The complete evaluation of potential environmental effects of the project, including rationale and facts supporting the City’s findings, is contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Addendum, Exhibit A.

SECTION 4. Findings on Environmental Impacts. Based on the Addendum, the administrative record, and having considered the CGPU EIR and all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that all environmental impacts of the Project have been addressed within the certified CGPU EIR. The Planning Commission finds that no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. The Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the certified CGPU EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum contains a complete, 197
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 5. Adoption of the Addendum to the CGPU Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts the Addendum, Exhibit A, prepared for the Project.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Coachella Civic Center. City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 7. Execution of Resolution. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Secretary shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
198
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the members of the City of Coachella Planning Commission on this 21st day of June, 2023.
__________________________
Ruben Gonzalez,
Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:
________________________________________
Gabriel Perez, Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
Carlos Campos, City Attorney
199
Item 4.

Resolution No. 2023-18

Page 3 ends

I, Gabriel Perez, Planning Secretary, City of Coachella, California, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 21th day of June, 2023, and was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Gabriel Perez
Planning Commission Secretary
200
Item 4.

June 2023

A DDENDUM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
(SCH NO: 2009021007)

FOR THE

GENERAL PLAN ADDENDUM PROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
201
Item 4.

This page intentionally left blank
202
Item 4.

June 2023

ADDENDUM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
(SCH NO: 2009021007)

FOR THE

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, California 92236
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
3111 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 109
Palm Springs, California 92262
(760) 416-2075
LSA Project No. 20231020
203
Item 4.

This page intentionally left blank
204
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...............................................................................1-2

1.2.1 Approved Project and Certified 2015 Program EIR ............................................................1-2

1.2.2 Proposed Project and Addendum.......................................................................................1-3

1.3 Previous Project Approvals............................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Findings of this Addendum ............................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Format of Addendum........................................................................................................ 1-5

1.6 Existing Documents to be Incorporated by Reference .....................................................1-5

1.7 Contact Persons ................................................................................................................ 1-6

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Approved Project .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Planning Area and Setting ..................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Approved Project Characteristics.....................................................................................2-11

2.3 Proposed Project............................................................................................................. 2-12

2.3.1 Proposed Coachella General Plan Land Use .....................................................................2-12

2.4 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5 Discretionary Actions...................................................................................................... 2-23

3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................... 3-1

3.1 Impacts Identified in the 2015 Program EIR .....................................................................3-1

3.2 Aesthetic Resources.......................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.1 Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 3-10

3.4.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-10

3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-15

3.6 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 3-19

3.6.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-20

3.7 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 3-29

3.7.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-29

3.8 Water Quality and Hydrology .........................................................................................3-35

3.8.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-36

3.9 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3-44

3.9.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-44

3.10 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3-47

3.10.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-48

3.11 Noise................................................................................................................................ 3-53

3.11.1 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................3-53

3.12 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-57 205
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2

3.12.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-58

3.13 Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................................... 3-62

3.13.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-62

3.14 Population and Housing.................................................................................................. 3-64

3.14.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-65

3.15 Public Utilities................................................................................................................. 3-66

3.15.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-67

3.16 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 3-70

3.16.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-71

3.17 Water Supply and Wastewater....................................................................................... 3-75

3.17.1 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-75

4.0 APPLICABLE 2015 PROGRAM EIR MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agricultural Resources...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.5 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.6 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.7 Water Quality and Hydrology ........................................................................................... 4-2

4.8 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................... 4-2

4.9 Circulation......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.11 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.12 Greenhouse Gases............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.13 Population and Housing.................................................................................................... 4-2

4.14 Public Utilities................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.16 Water Supply and Wastewater......................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-1 206
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-3

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ...................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2: Aerial Photograph of Northern Project Area ....................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Aerial Photograph of Western Project Area .....................................................................2-7 Figure 2-4: Aerial Photograph of Southern Project Area ....................................................................2-9 Figure 2-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ..............................................................2-13 Figure 2-6: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Northern Project Area....................2-15 Figure 2-7: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Western Project Area .....................2-17 Figure 2-8: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Southern Project Area ....................2-21 TABLE
Table 2.A: Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations.................................................................2-19 207
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -4

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2015 Program EIR Certified 2015 CGPU 2035 EIR
AG Agriculture
Approved Project CGPU 2035 Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009021007)
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMPs Best Management Practices
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CGPU City of Coachella General Plan Update 2035
City City of Coachella
CMC City of Coachella Municipal Code
CMP Riverside County Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County County of Riverside
CR Commercial Retail
CRBRWQCB Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
dBA A-weighted decibel
DIF Development Impact Fee
du/ac dwelling units per acre
EDR Estate Density Residential
EIC Eastern Information Center
208
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-5 EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAR floor-area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
I-10 Interstate 10
IS Initial Study
LOS level of service
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOx nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OS-RUR Open Space Rural
PCC Portland cement concrete
PF Public Facilities
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
ppm parts per million
RCGP Riverside County General Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
209
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -6 SR-86 State Route 86
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TTCP traditional tribal cultural places
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
USGS United States Geological Survey
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WWRSC/CVSC Whitewater River Stormwater Channel/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
210
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
In April 2015, the City Council of the City of Coachella (City) approved the General Plan Update 2035 document (CGPU) along with the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2009021007) (approved project). The City has prepared this Addendum to the certified 2015 CGPU 2035 EIR (2015 Program EIR) to address the potential site-specific environmental impacts associated with the identification of CGPU land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the CGPU Planning Area in the previously certified EIR but for which no CGPU land use designation was identified (proposed project).

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”, Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the proposed project, in consideration of the potential environmental effects that could result from project implementation.

The City’s review of the proposed project is limited to examining environmental effects associated with differences between the proposed project and the approved project reviewed in the certified 2015 Program EIR. Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this Addendum to provide decision-makers with a factual basis for evaluating the specific environmental impacts associated with proposed project and to determine whether there are changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

According to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed changes unless the City determines on the basis of substantial evidence that one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 211
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2 b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The CGPU Program EIR remains valid and is the certified CEQA document for future planning actions.

As such, the certified 2015 Program EIR along with this Addendum, will be used to determine whether the proposed project falls within the scope analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR. Mitigation measures from the certified 2015 Program EIR have been incorporated into this Addendum, and the applicability of each has been described.

This examination includes an analysis of provisions of Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the project.

Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared “if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Thus, if none of the above conditions are met, the City may not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Rather, the City can decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary or can require that an Addendum be prepared.

Based upon review of the facts as presented in the analysis contained in this document, the City finds that an Addendum to the certified 2015 Program EIR is the appropriate documentation to comply with CEQA. The rationale and the facts for this finding are provided in the body of this Addendum.

1.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1.2.1 Approved Project and Certified 2015 Program EIR
EIR Process
On March 8, 2013, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the approved project to identify the potential environmental impacts of the project. The NOP for the approved project was sent to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research SCH the required 30-day public review period, which ended on April 15, 2013. During the review period, public agencies and members of the public had the opportunity to respond to the NOP to identify issues of special concern to them and to suggest additional issues to be considered in the EIR.
212
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-3 In addition, the City held a public scoping meeting on March 14, 2013, to discuss characteristics of the approved project, its planning status, the nature of its potential environmental effects, and the scope (i.e., the specific issues) of the EIR analysis. The scoping meeting provided further opportunities for public input regarding environmental concerns and issues that should be addressed in the EIR. The Draft EIR for the approved project was distributed to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research SCH on July 1, 2014, initiating the public review period, which ended on September 15, 2014.

In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Coachella, as the Lead Agency for the approved project, evaluated comments received on the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2009021007) and prepared responses to the comments received.

On April 22, 2015, the City Council of the City of Coachella approved the CGPU 2035 document along with the 2015 Program EIR and Climate Action Plan.

Type of EIR
The 2015 Certified EIR serves as a Program EIR pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168.

The use of a Program EIR provides an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than otherwise would be practical under a Project EIR. However, subsequent activities occurring as a result of program/project approval and certification of a Program EIR must be further evaluated in light of the Program EIR to determine whether or not an additional environmental document must be prepared. If an agency finds that no new effects could occur and that no new mitigation would be required, then the agency can determine that subsequent activities are covered under the Program EIR and no further environmental documentation would be required.

Conversely, an agency may determine that future projects could require the preparation of a new Initial Study (IS), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or new EIR. If new environmental documentation is required, a Program EIR can be used to focus the scope of the subsequent environmental document (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168).

1.2.2 Proposed Project and Addendum
This Addendum compares anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project with those disclosed in the 2015 Certified EIR to review whether any conditions set forth in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met.

Potential environmental effects of the proposed project are addressed for each of the following areas, which were included in the certified 2015 Program EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Circulation
• Cultural Resources
• Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
213
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -4 • Geology
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Utilities
• Water Supply and Wastewater
As discussed in Chapter 8.0 of the certified 2015 Program EIR, the City had determined that the approved project would result in less than significant or no impacts for some of the threshold questions under the following resource topics: Aesthetics, Agriculture Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Seismic Hazards, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Population and Housing, Utilities, Public Services, and Water Supply. The impacts are discussed briefly in Chapter 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant in the 2015 Program EIR. The proposed project does not necessitate a change in these determinations as the existing site conditions and nature of the project have not substantially changed from those identified for the certified 2015 Program EIR.

1.3 PREVIOUS PROJECT APPROVALS
In February 2015, the City certified the CGPU Program EIR and approved the project, including the following actions:
• Certification of the EIR
• Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of Findings of Fact

1.4 FINDINGS OF THIS ADDENDUM
The City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The City has determined that analyses of project environmental effects are best provided through use of an Addendum and that none of the conditions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have been met.

3. There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the 2015 Program EIR was certified, indicating any of the following:
• The project will have one or more new significant effects not discussed in the 2015 Program EIR;
• There are impacts determined to be significant in the 2015 Program EIR that would be substantially more severe;
214
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 1-5 • There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives to the project that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified in the 2015 Program EIR; and • There are additional mitigation measures or alternatives rejected by the project proponent that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR that would substantially reduce a significant impact identified in that EIR.

The complete evaluation of potential environmental effects of the project, including rationale and facts supporting the City’s findings, is contained in Chapter 3.0 of this Addendum.

1.5 FORMAT OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been organized into four chapters, as described below.

Chapter 1.0: Introduction
Chapter 1.0 includes a description of the purpose and scope of the Addendum, previous environmental documentation, project approvals, findings of the Addendum, and existing documents to be incorporated by reference.

Chapter 2.0: Project Description
Chapter 2.0 describes the planning area, the necessary City discretionary actions to implement the proposed project, and an overview of the proposed project.

Chapter 3.0: Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Chapter 3.0 contains the environmental analyses of the proposed project’s impacts compared to the impacts of the approved project analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR. This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA to provide the City of Coachella decisionmakers with a factual basis for determining whether the proposed project, changes in circumstances, or new information since the 2015 Program EIR was certified, require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Chapter 3.0 also contains findings for each environmental topic to determine whether conditions set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have been met.

Chapter 4.0: Applicable 2015 Program EIR Mitigation Measures Chapter 4.0 contains the mitigation measures that were adopted upon certification of the 2015 Program EIR and that would be incorporated into the proposed project.

1.6 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
As permitted in Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum references several technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that have been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) of this 215
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
1 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -6 Addendum. Documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Coachella Development Services Department, located at 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, CA 92236. Contact Gabriel Perez at (760) 398-3502 for additional information.

Documents incorporated by reference include, but are not limited to, the following:
• City of Coachella; Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, February 2015; • City of Coachella; General Plan, as amended; and
• City of Coachella Municipal Code.

1.7 CONTACT PERSONS
The Lead Agency for the Addendum for the proposed project is the City of Coachella. Questions regarding preparation of this Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following:

Gabriel Perez, Director
City of Coachella Development Services Department
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236
Phone: (760) 398-3502
Email: [email protected]
216
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Coachella is proposing to identify CGPU land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the CGPU Planning Area in the certified 2015 Program EIR but for which no CGPU land use designation was identified. The three areas include: (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area) (see Figure 2-1, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations; Figure 2-2, Aerial Photograph of Northern Project Area; Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph of Western Project Area; and Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph of Southern Project Area).

2.2 APPROVED PROJECT

2.2.1 Planning Area and Setting
The City of Coachella is a desert community located at the eastern end of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. Settlement by non-Native Americans began in the mid-1800s, and Coachella slowly grew as it became connected with the rest of Southern California on the Southern Pacific Coachella Valley railroad. The Colorado River provided water for farming and irrigation. The Coachella Valley, including the City of Coachella, the City of Indio, and the unincorporated communities of Thermal and Mecca, is known for producing niche crops such as dates, grapes, lemons, oranges, avocados, figs, persimmons, and mangoes. Lastly, the Coachella Canal was one of the final milestones in the City of Coachella’s development, as it contributed to dramatic growth, especially in the southern and eastern portions of the City. Today the City’s agricultural wealth offers many jobs for people in the Coachella Valley; additional job types include manufacturing, construction, retail, and professional and management jobs. 217
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
218
Item 4.

Southern
Western
Northern
Jackson St
Airport Blvd
Dillon
R
d
Pierce St 62nd Ave
Van Buren St
Lincoln St
Ã111
Ã86
§¨¦10
SOURCE: City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (5/1/2023) FIGURE 2.1
Coachella EIR Addendum
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
0 3500 7000
FEET
Project Areas
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
General Plan Planning Area
Tribal Lands
Airport Compatibility Zones
Zone A
Zone B1
Zone B2
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Downtown Center
Urban Employment Center
Neighborhood Center
Regional Retail District
Suburban Retail District
Resort District
Industrial District
Urban Neighborhood
General Neighborhood
Suburban Neighborhood
Rural Rancho
Agricultural Rancho
Open Space
School
Public Facilities
Brandenburg Butters Specific Plan
Coachella Vineyards Specific Plan
Eagle Falls Specific Plan
La Entrada Specific Plan
Philips Ranch Specific Plan
219
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -4 This page intentionally left blank
220
Item 4.
§¨¦10
Coachella Canal
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (4/26/2023) FIGURE 2.2
Coachella EIR Addendum
Aerial Photograph of Northern Project Area
0 750 1500
FEET
Northern Project Area

LANDELL RD

FARGO CANYON RD

VISTA DEL SUR

DILLON RD
221
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -6 This page intentionally left blank
222
Item 4.

SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (4/26/2023) FIGURE 2.3
Coachella EIR Addendum
Aerial Photograph of Western Project Area
0 250 500
FEET
Western Project Area
51ST AVE

CALHOUN ST
52ND AVE

JACKSON ST
223
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -8 This page intentionally left blank
224
Item 4.

Ã111
Ã86
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (4/26/2023) FIGURE 2.4
Coachella EIR Addendum
Aerial Photograph of Southern Project Area
0 750 1500
FEET
Southern Project Area
60TH AVE

LINCOLN ST

BUCHANAN ST
62ND AVE
225
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -10 This page intentionally left blank
226
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 2-11 Existing County General Plan Land Use Designations
The Northern, Western, and Southern Project Areas are currently under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside (County) (see Figure 2-1, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations). The Riverside County General Plan (RCGP) land use designations are discussed below.

Existing and historic land uses within the Northern Project Area consist of agricultural uses, open space, and the Coachella Valley Transfer Station (see Figure 2-2, Aerial Photograph of Northern Project Area). The Northern Project Area is currently designated by the RCGP Land Use Plan as Open Space Rural (OS-RUR) and Public Facilities (PF). The OS-RUR designation is intended for remote, privately owned open space areas with limited access and a lack of public services. The OS-RUR designation allows single-family residential uses at a density of 0.05 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).

The PF land use is intended for the development of various public, quasi-public, and private uses with similar characteristics, such as governmental facilities, utility facilities including public and private electric generating stations and corridors, landfills, airports, educational facilities, and maintenance yards. Due to the varied nature of the PF category, building intensity and design criteria for uses in this designation vary and the appropriate floor area ratio (FAR) is determined in the zoning ordinance. The maximum intensity allowed for civic uses within the PF designation is

0.6 FAR.

Existing and historic land uses within the Western Project Area consist primarily of agricultural and single-family residential uses and the Forest Lawn Mortuary (see Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph of Western Project Area). The Western Project Area is currently designated by the RCGP Land Use Plan as Estate Density Residential (EDR) and Commercial Retail (CR). The EDR designation is intended for the development of detached single-family residential dwelling units and ancillary structures on large parcels. Limited agriculture is also permitted in the EDR designation. The allowable density for the EDR designation is 0.2 to 0.5 du/ac. The CR designation is intended for the development of commercial retail uses at a neighborhood, community and regional level, as well as for professional office and tourist-oriented commercial uses and allows a density of 0.2 to 0.35 FAR.

Existing and historic land uses within the Southern Project Area consist primarily of agricultural and single-family residential uses and the College of the Desert, East Valley Campus (see Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph of Southern Project Area). The Southern Project Area is currently designated by the RCGP Land Use Plan as Agriculture (AG) and Panorama Specific Plan. The AG designation is intended to help conserve productive agricultural lands within the County including row crops, nurseries, citrus groves, vineyards, dairies, ranches, poultry and hog farms, and other agricultural related uses. The AG designation also allows residential uses at a maximum density of 0.1 du/ac. The Panorama Specific Plan is envisioned as a mixed-use master planned community being called Panorama: A College Town, and includes a mix of residential, retail, and office land use designations.

The Panorama Specific Plan designation allows density ranging from 5-20 du/ac and 0.2 to 1 FAR.

2.2.2 Approved Project Characteristics
The approved project, as analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR, provided for an update to the City’s existing General Plan and is intended to guide growth and future development through the horizon year 2035.
227
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -12 Certified 2015 Program EIR
Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of the 2015 Program EIR found that implementation of the approved project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, and transportation. With the exception of these topics, all other potentially significant impacts were determined to be less than significant or effectively mitigated to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, in order to consider the benefits of the approved project against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

The 2015 Program EIR remains the valid CEQA documentation for future planning actions in the planning area, and is used to determine whether future development falls within the size and type of uses analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves the identification of CGPU land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the CGPU Planning Area in the previously certified EIR but for which no CGPU land use designation was identified. The three areas include the Northern Project Area, Western Project Area, and Southern Project Area, the boundaries of which are defined above in Section 2.1 (see Figure 2-5, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations).

2.3.1 Proposed Coachella General Plan Land Use
The proposed CGPU land use designations for the Northern Project Area include Agricultural Rancho and Public Facilities and Buildings (see Figure 2-6, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Northern Project Area). The Agricultural Rancho designation provides areas for productive agriculture uses in the City and allows agricultural uses with small amounts of accessory uses that support the agricultural use. The maximum allowable density for the Agricultural Rancho designation is 0.025 du/ac or one unit/parcel, whichever is smaller, and 0.01 FAR for commercial uses. The Public Facilities and Buildings designation provides for governmental buildings and facilities and allows a wide range of public uses including city halls, libraries, community centers, senior centers, fire stations, police stations, corporate yards, and similar uses.

The proposed CGPU land use designations for the Western Project Area include Estate Rancho and Suburban Retail (see Figure 2-7, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Western Project Area). The Estate Rancho designation accommodates low intensity residential development in an estate or low-density suburban format. These areas are generally located on the outside edges of the City of Coachella and serve as a transition zone between more dense residential areas and the rural and agricultural landscape surrounding the City. The Estate Rancho land use designation is a new land use designation that would be created to match the existing County zoning because there is not a direct match for this density. Recent State legislation mandates that if there is a conflict in residential density between the General Plan and zoning, the higher density shall prevail (not necessarily the General Plan). The existing County zoning for the proposed Estate Rancho designation allows up to 2.2 du/ac (1 unit per 20,000 square feet), while the existing County General 228
Item 4.

Southern***
Western**
Northern*
Jackson St
Airport Blvd
Dillon
Rd
Pierce St 62nd Ave
Van Buren St
Lincoln St
Ã111
Ã86
§¨¦10
SOURCE: City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (6/12/2023) FIGURE 2.5
Coachella EIR Addendum
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
0 3500 7000
FEET
Project Areas
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
General Plan Planning Area
Tribal Lands
Airport Compatibility Zones
Zone A
Zone B1
Zone B2
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Downtown Center
Urban Employment Center
Neighborhood Center
Regional Retail District
Suburban Retail District
Resort District
Industrial District
Urban Neighborhood
General Neighborhood
Suburban Neighborhood
Estate Rancho
Rural Rancho
Agricultural Rancho
Open Space
School
Public Facilities
Brandenburg Butters Specific Plan
Coachella Vineyards Specific Plan
Eagle Falls Specific Plan
La Entrada Specific Plan
Philips Ranch Specific Plan
County Specific Plan
*See Figure 2.6 for additional detail
**See Figure 2.7 for additional detail
***See Figure 2.8 for additional detail
229
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -14 This page intentionally left blank
230
Item 4.
§¨¦10
Coachella Canal
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (5/1/2023) FIGURE 2.6
0 750 1500
FEET
Northern Project Area
Land Use Designation
Agricultural Rancho
Public Facilities

LANDELL RD

FARGO CANYON RD

VISTA DEL SUR

DILLON RD
Coachella EIR Addendum
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations for Northern Project Area
231
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -16 This page intentionally left blank
232
Item 4.

SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (5/1/2023) FIGURE 2.7
0 250 500
FEET
Western Project Area
Land Use Designation
Suburban Retail District
Estate Rancho
51ST AVE

CALHOUN ST
52ND AVE

JACKSON ST
Coachella EIR Addendum
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations for Western Project Area
233
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -18 This page intentionally left blank
234
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 2-19 Plan designation allows 0.5 du/ac. The Estate Rancho designation would allow a density of 1.2 to 2 du/ac. The Suburban Retail designation is intended to provide a concentration of retail business “large format” retailers in a setting that accommodates the parking requirements of such businesses. Allowed land uses for the Suburban Retail designation primarily include retail and services, sometimes with commercial uses on upper floors with a density of 0.35 to 1.0 FAR.

The proposed CGPU land use designations for the Southern Project Area include Agricultural Rancho and to designate land within the Panorama Specific Plan as a County Specific Plan (see Figure 2-8, Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for Southern Project Area).

Table 2.A provides a comparison of the existing RCGP land use designations and the proposed project land use designations as well as a comparison of development densities.

Table 2.A: Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations
Existing RCGP Land Use Existing RCGP
Development Density
Proposed CGPU Land
Use
Proposed CGPU Development
Density
Open Space Rural (OS-RUR) 0.05 du/ac maximum Agricultural Rancho 0.025 du/ac or 1 unit/parcel, whichever is smaller
Public Facilities (PF) <=0.6 FAR Public Facilities The Public Facilities designation does not include an allowable
development density.

Estate Density Residential (EDR) 0.2–0.5 du/ac Estate Rancho 1-2.2 du/ac Commercial Retail (CR) 0.2–0.35 FAR Suburban Retail 0.35-1.0 FAR Agriculture (AG) 0.1 du/ac Agricultural Rancho 0.025 du/ac or 1 unit/parcel, whichever is smaller
Panorama College Town Specific
Plan (mix of residential, retail,
and office land use designations)
Range from 5–20 du/ac
and 0.2–1 FAR
County Specific Plan Varies (consistent with the
Panorama College Town
Specific Plan)
Source: Raimi + Associates (2023a).

CGPU = City of Coachella General Plan Update 2035
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
FAR = floor area ratio
RCGP = Riverside County General Plan

2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project would result in the identification of CGPU land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the CGPU Planning Area in the previously certified EIR but for which no CGPU land use designation was identified. Under the approved project, the City established the following project objectives:

1. Adapt to changing demographics to connect and create a vision for the growing population of the City;

2. Create a healthy and economically viable City with a diversity of activities and economic opportunities;
235
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -20 This page intentionally left blank
236
Item 4.

Ã111
Ã86
SOURCE: Nearmap (2023) City of Coachella (2023), County of Riverside (2023) J:\20231020\GIS\Pro\Coachella EIR Addendum\Coachella EIR Addendum.aprx (6/9/2023) FIGURE 2.8
Coachella EIR Addendum
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations for Southern Project Area
0 750 1500
FEET
Southern Project Area
Land Use Designation
Agricultural Rancho
County Specific Plan
60TH AVE

LINCOLN ST

BUCHANAN ST
62ND AVE
237
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -22 This page intentionally left blank
238
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 2-23

3. Implement new technology and innovations to increase the quality of infrastructure, social services, and environmental sustainability;

4. Update older development plans that no longer align with the community’s new vision;

5. Chart the way to a low-carbon future;

6. Redirect development patterns for City growth, economic characteristics, and land-use to create a well-connected City;

7. Assess needs for projected growth within the City, and the Sphere of Influence;

8. Create a City with a range of housing for multiple generations, cultures, and incomes;

9. Ensure the City grows with improved living conditions; and

10. Foster the community’s desire for safe, active transportation.

2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Discretionary approvals required for the proposed project include the following:

1. Approval of this Addendum to the certified 2015 General Plan Program EIR to address potential environmental effects as a result of implementation of the proposed project since the original City Council approval and EIR certification in February 2015; and

2. Revisions to the City’s Land Use Map.
239
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
2 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -24 This page intentionally left blank
240
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-1

3.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following discussion contains an analysis of the potential impacts of the changes to the approved project in relation to the proposed project. The potential impacts of the proposed project are compared to impacts identified for the approved project analyzed in the certified 2015 Program EIR, which the City approved in February 2015. As detailed in Chapter 1.0 of this Addendum, this comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to CEQA and to provide City decision-makers with a factual basis for determining whether the proposed changes to the approved project, changes in circumstances, or new information since the certification of the 2015 Program EIR require additional environmental review. Potential impacts associated with the proposed project are evaluated using the same thresholds applied in the 2015 Program EIR. The basis for each finding is explained in the analysis that follows.

3.1 IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2015 PROGRAM EIR
As discussed previously in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project involves the identification of CGPU land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the CGPU Planning Area in the previously certified EIR but for which no CGPU land use designation was identified. Since the scope of the proposed project involves designating land uses already analyzed under the approved project, any impacts are anticipated to be similar to or less than those impacts previously covered by the 2015 Program EIR. Although impacts would be similar to or less than those previously covered by the 2015 Program EIR, a new analysis for impacts is provided in this Addendum as required by CEQA. The environmental analysis provided in the 2015 Certified EIR remains relevant and applicable to the proposed project in areas unaffected by changes in existing conditions and changes in the proposed project for the environmental topics as listed below.

As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, an EIR must identify the effects of the proposed project determined not to be significant. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine whether the approved project could have a significant effect on the environment. While the IS determined that all resource topics had the potential to result in significant impacts, all resource topics were evaluated as part of the 2015 Program EIR.

The resource evaluations are discussed in Sections 3.2 through 3.17 of this Addendum to the 2015 Program EIR.
241
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2

3.2 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

3.2.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (Impact 4.1-1) 2015 Program EIR
Within the Planning Area, scenic vistas provide valuable aesthetic resources, including expansive landscape views of the Coachella Valley, to the residents and patrons of the City and its Sphere of Influence. Scenic vistas within the Planning Area include the sweeping views of the Mecca Hills in the eastern portion of the Planning Area. Additional scenic vistas that are not within the Planning Area, but can be seen from within the Planning Area, include the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, which can be viewed to the west and southwest of the Planning Area, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains, which can be viewed to the north and northwest of the Planning Area.

Previous analysis from the 2015 Program EIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas from future development associated with the CGPU would be less than significant due to the land use program and allowable intensities of land proposed by the CGPU and the implementation of CGPU Policies

6.1, 6.2, 10.8, and 10.9 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element.

Proposed Project
Existing and historic land uses within the Northern Project Area consist of agricultural uses, undeveloped open space, and the Coachella Valley Transfer Station. The project proposes to designate the Northern Project Area as Agricultural Rancho and Public Facilities and Buildings, which would be consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations.

Existing and historic land uses within the Western Project Area consist primarily of agricultural and single-family residential uses and the Forest Lawn Mortuary. The project proposes to designate the Western Project Area as Estate Rancho for the agricultural and single-family residential uses and Suburban Retail for the parcel that is currently developed with the Forest Lawn Mortuary. As discussed previously in Section 2.2.1, the Western Project Area is currently designated by the RCGP 242
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-3 Land Use Plan as Estate Density Residential (EDR) and Commercial Retail (CR). The proposed project would result in a land use designation change from EDR to Estate Rancho, which allows for agricultural and single-family residential uses, and CR to Suburban Retail. Currently, the only parcel in the Western Project Area that is designated CR by the RCGP Land Use Plan is the Forest Lawn Mortuary. As shown in Table 2.A, in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed land use designations would allow for development density and uses consistent with existing land uses. As such, the proposed land use designations would be consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations.

Existing and historic land use within the Southern Project Area consist primarily of agricultural and single-family residential uses and the College of the Desert, East Valley Campus. The project proposes to designate the Southern Project Area as Agricultural Rancho and County Specific Plan, which would be consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in the continuation of these existing and historic uses.

Furthermore, the proposed land use designations primarily only allow lower density development, which would result in a less intense land use, which would only cause a minimal change to the views of the existing open space. Further, CGPU Policies 6.1, 6.2, 10.8, and 10.9 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element would be incorporated into the proposed project for any future development, which would reduce impacts on scenic vistas through preserving view corridors, restricting new billboards, and preserving natural features and agricultural lands. As such, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

The impact would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR.

Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR, and no mitigation would be required. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Impact 4.1-2) 2015 Program EIR
There are no designated, or eligible, State scenic highways within the Planning Area. Major historic highways within the Planning Area include old State Highway 99 (now Dillon Road between Grapefruit Boulevard and Interstate 10), old State Highway 86 (Harrison Street south of Grapefruit Boulevard), and old State Highway 111 (Grapefruit Boulevard), and State Highway 86 south of Interstate 10. Previous analysis from the 2015 Program EIR concluded that there would be no impacts to State scenic highways and view sheds from the City’s highways due to the implementation of CGPU Policies 6.2, 10.9, and 13.16 from the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU.

Proposed Project
No portions of the project site are adjacent to or within view of a State scenic highway and therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. As a result, no impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. Therefore, no 243
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -4 new or substantially more severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR, and no mitigation would be required.
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Impact 4.1-3)
2015 Program EIR
The Planning Area has a unique visual characteristic in its scenic geographical location, agricultural and rancho history, and quality architecture of historic buildings. The expected growth under the CGPU will turn Coachella into a medium-sized city with many more amenities and services to offer visitors and residents. The majority of development and density increases will occur in the western portion of the Planning Area where there is existing development. Previous analysis from the 2015 Program EIR concluded that policies within the CGPU (Policies 2.2 through 2.5 of the Land Use and Community Character Element) would help preserve the existing visual character of the City where it is deemed valuable, or direct future development to either enhance the existing visual character of the City or create a new, complementary visual character; however, based on the overall scale of growth under the CGPU, there is potential for significant impacts to the visual character of the City, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Existing and historic land uses within the Western Project Area consist primarily of agricultural and single-family residential uses and the Forest Lawn Mortuary. The project proposes to designate the Western Project Area as Estate Rancho for the agricultural and single-family residential uses and Suburban Retail for the parcel that is currently developed with the Forest Lawn Mortuary. As shown in Table 2.A, in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed land use designations would allow for development density and uses consistent with existing land uses. As such, the proposed land use designations would be consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in the continuation of these existing and historic uses.

Any new development would be designed consistent with the extensive policies, design guidelines, and development strategies of the CGPU aimed at reducing impacts to aesthetic resources and preserving the existing visual character of the City. New development under the proposed CGPU land use designations would not result in any greater impacts on visual character or quality than previously analyzed in the 2015 Program EIR.
244
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-5 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Impact 4.1-4)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR concluded that as development occurs under the CGPU, additional sources of light would be created in the central and eastern portions of the Planning Area as agricultural lands are converted to urban uses to accommodate the growing population. New development would introduce new light sources that are typical of urban development projects. While the new development under the CGPU would add new lighting sources to the Planning Area, the number and types of lighting sources are not anticipated to substantially differ from those commonly used at existing developments within the City. However, because much of the Planning Area is relatively undeveloped with little to no existing light sources, the CGPU is anticipated to introduce a substantial amount of light and glare sources, where none previously existed. However, all new development in the City is required to adhere to lighting requirements contained in the City’s Zoning Code Chapter 16.28.150(L) (Improvements and Grading); Chapter 17.56.010(J)(2)(e); (Signs); and

17.54.010 (K) (Off-Street Parking and Loading). These measures are uniformly applied to all development in the City with the purpose of limiting light and glare impacts. Adherence to the City’s Zoning Code and subdivision ordinances that strictly limit light-related impacts of potential light spillover through shielding and screening would ensure that any new development lighting would not significantly impact adjacent uses through light spill. Furthermore, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use and Community Character Element and Policy 6.5 of the and Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU would further reduce potential light and glare-related impacts of new projects by requiring new light sources to be limited so as to prevent light-related impacts and requiring climate appropriate materials that do not reflect substantive amounts of light.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses. All new development projects would be subject to lighting requirements in the City’s Zoning Code and policies within the CGPU which would limit light and glare impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. The impact would be consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the increase in population growth and increase in developed area necessary to accommodate growth associated with the CGPU would result in a substantial change in the visual character of the Coachella Valley as large swaths of undeveloped desert and agricultural land are converted to urban uses and substantial numbers of new sources of light and glare are introduced. The 2015 Program EIR concluded that this substantial change in the visual characteristics of the Coachella Valley would likely result in significant, cumulative impacts to all aesthetics resources across the valley including views, visual character, and light and glare. Because the impacts are directly related to the changes in land uses from non-urban 245
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -6 uses to urban uses, the only realistic mitigation beyond the policies presented in the CGPU and the regulations of the City’s Municipal Code would be to restrict or prevent new growth in the City of Coachella. However, such an approach is not legally feasible because it would severely impact property rights and increase the cost of housing. As such, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that no further mitigation is possible, and the CGPU would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources.

3.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment
that, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses?

3.3.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Impact 4.2-1) 2015 Program EIR
Previous analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would result in the conversion of 9,862 acres of farmland to urbanized uses. Of this acreage, 5,662 acres of 246
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-7 Prime Farmland, 3,613 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, and 587 acres of Unique Farmland would be converted to urbanized uses. To address the extensive conversion of agricultural resources under the CGPU, a comprehensive policy program has been developed and the CGPU addresses agricultural resources in numerous policies in the Land Use and Community Character Element (Policies 2.12 through 2.14, 2.18, 4.1 through 4.7, and 12.3) and the Sustainability and Natural Resources Element (Policies 10.1 through 10.13). Additionally, the City’s approach to development as proposed by the CGPU would help reduce the impact to agricultural resources by focusing new development in High Priority Development Areas and Growth Expansion Areas. Nevertheless, the conversion of farmland to urban uses would be a significant and unavoidable impact, and the 2015 Program EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures.

Proposed Project
The project site includes land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Prime Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Unique Farmland, as shown in Figure 4.2-1: Important Farmland in Coachella, of the 2015 Program EIR.
1 A portion of the Northern Project Area is composed of Unique Farmland; approximately 50 percent of the Western Project Area is composed of Farmland of Local Importance and Prime Farmland; and the Southern Project Area is composed entirely of a combination of Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, and Unique Farmland. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural uses and would not directly result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the acreage impacts identified above in the 2015 Program EIR discussion included the three Project Areas.

Therefore, impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance would be consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? (Impact 4.2-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that there are approximately 11,139 acres of agricultural land within the Planning Area, 994 acres of which are under a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, approximately 1,480 additional acres of land are under Williamson Act contracts that have not been renewed and are set to expire. The CGPU included the redesignation of land zoned as Agricultural, Agricultural Reserve, or Agricultural Transition to urban uses and rezoning of some agricultural land to urban uses with the update of the City’s Zoning Code. The City’s approach to development as proposed by the CGPU would help reduce the impacts to agricultural resources by focusing new development in High Priority Development Areas and Growth Expansion Areas. Nevertheless, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would conflict with Williamson Act contracts and would result in conflicting zoning for agricultural use, and a significant and 1 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.2-1: Important Farmland in Coachella.

October.
247
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -8 unavoidable impact would occur. The 2015 Program EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures.

Proposed Project
The Southern and Western Project Areas include land zoned for agricultural uses and land that is under a Williamson Act contract. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural uses and would not directly result in conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the proposed project area was included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of agricultural resources in the 2015 Program EIR.

Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with zoning or a Williamson Act contract would be consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. c. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses? (Impact 4.2-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would result in the development of urban uses adjacent to farmland throughout the central portion of the City that could result in negative impacts to farm operations. However, the CGPU includes goals and policies that would help minimize direct and indirect impacts to agricultural resources such as implementing buffers and right-to-farm policies (Policies 10.8 and 10.9 of the Sustainability and Natural Resources Element). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that indirect impacts to farmland would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural uses and would not directly result in the conversion of any farmland to non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the proposed project area was included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of agricultural resources in the 2015 Program EIR. Therefore, impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would be consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Agricultural Resources Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would contribute to cumulative impacts to agriculture within Riverside County. Future growth within the City of Coachella and Riverside County would result in the loss of agricultural resources. Although the CGPU includes extensive policy direction that minimizes the impacts to agricultural resources, the scope of cumulative impacts would extend beyond the jurisdiction of the City which is beyond the scope of control of the City of Coachella. Therefore, additional mitigation for cumulative impacts 248
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-9 would not be feasible and the conversion of Coachella’s agricultural resources would be cumulatively considerable. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural uses and would not directly result in the conversion of any farmland to non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the proposed project area was included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of agricultural resources in the 2015 Program EIR. All new development projects would be subject to existing requirements in the City’s Zoning Code and policies within the CGPU related to agricultural resources as summarized above. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 249
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -10

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Have 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
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations; or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or conflict with
the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?

3.4.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have 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 regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Impact 4.3-1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the City has habitat that supports sensitive species including sandy dunes, areas where vegetation is sparse and ground is sandy, grasslands, and agriculture lands. Because the City is not fully developed, the biodiversity surrounding the existing developed areas could experience negative effects due to growth under the CGPU. Ecological buffers, agriculture buffers, and preservation land are all incorporated in the Sustainability and Natural 250
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-11 Environment Element to protect potential impacts on sensitive wildlife and plant species. The CGPU also encourages efficient development by using less land per capita compared to sprawl development types and discourages development in a large portion of the Planning Area.

Additionally, policies in the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU address the protection and preservation of sensitive species within the Planning Area (Policies 5.6, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, and 10.7). However, the 2015 Program EIR determined that there is still potential for impacts to sensitive species to occur with implementation of the CGPU, and the following Mitigation Measure is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels:

Mitigation Measure Prior to adoption of the Final EIR and CGPU, update CGPU Chapter 7 with new policy. Policy will state: Require projects proposing to develop in subareas 5, 6, and 7 to conduct survey to determine if there is occurrence of sensitive species within the project area. If sensitive species are present, projects must implement mitigation measures necessary as prescribed by a qualified biologist and approved by any applicable resource agency in order to receive necessary City permits.

Proposed Project
The three Project Areas (proposed project) were included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of biological resources in the 2015 Program EIR. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural and vacant/open space uses and would not directly result in a significant loss of wildlife habitat. Any future development would be subject to CGPU policies aimed at protecting and preserving sensitive species. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Impact 4.3-2) 2015 Program EIR
Within the Planning Area, riparian habitat occurs in very limited amounts north of the City along the Whitewater River and there are no other sensitive habitats within the Planning Area. Based on environmental analysis under the 2015 Program EIR, the riparian habitat in the Planning Area is very limited and is too dispersed to support any species. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not substantially affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The three Project Areas were included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of biological resources in the 2015 Program EIR. No portion of the proposed project area is located within the riparian habitat of the Whitewater River. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a 251
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -12 substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect 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?
2015 Program EIR
The Whitewater River, its tributary washes, and channels located east of the Coachella Canal make up the existing waterways and wetlands in the Planning Area. Throughout the lifespan of the CGPU, the area around the Whitewater River will experience increased residential density, downtown expansion, development of an employment center and an industrial district. However, policies under the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU call for a number of strategies to regulate water quality in the Planning Area (Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.6, 10.2, and 10.8). These policies include conservation performance targets, low impact development, and stormwater management. Furthermore, the CGPU Land Use Plan has been designed to allocate development away from sensitive habitats including wetlands and riparian habitats. The Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401 serve as other regulatory systems to ensure low impacts to waterways and wetlands of the United States. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not substantially affect any State or federally protected wetlands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The three Project Areas were included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of biological resources in the 2015 Program EIR. Any future development would be subject to the CGPU policies related to water quality and wetlands in addition to Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
d. Would the project 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? (Impact 4.3-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the Planning Area contains undeveloped agricultural and open space land that is available for use by migratory species including 11,174 acres of agriculture land, 18,224 acres of vacant land, and 109 acres of parks and open space. Under the CGPU, some agriculture and undeveloped land is planned to be transformed into various land uses in response to the projected population growth over the coming decades, which would result in a loss of forage area for migratory species. However, these impacts are expected to be less than significant due to 252
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-13 the significant tracts of land that would be set-aside as open space as proposed by the CGPU Land Use Plan. Additionally, the CGPU encourages more efficient use of land with higher density, increased walkability, better street connectivity, and preservation of natural open space areas and sensitive species. Furthermore, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies aimed at preserving sensitive wildlife corridors, agriculture, and open space to ensure minimal impact on sensitive species, including the habitat of migratory species (Policies 5.6,

9.2, 9.6, and 9.7). Consistency with the CGPU policies would reduce impacts to migratory species.

Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The three Project Areas were included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of biological resources in the 2015 Program EIR. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural and vacant/open space uses and would not directly result in a significant loss of forage area or wildlife corridors. Any future development would be subject to CGPU policies aimed at preserving sensitive wildlife corridors, agriculture, and open space to ensure minimal impact on sensitive species, including the habitat of migratory species. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (Impact 4.3-4) 2015 Program EIR
The City of Coachella and its Sphere of Influence are located within the area for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The CVMSHCP identifies sensitive and endangered species and habitats in the Coachella Valley and works to preserve and protect natural habitats. The CVMSHCP identifies land that contains sensitive habitats in specific planning areas and sets to allocate these lands as undevelopable to prevent harm to sensitive or endangered species.

Additionally, the CVMSCHP’s overall goal is to conserve land and safeguard the habitats for sensitive and endangered species. Based on the CVMSHCP list of sensitive species, there are few sensitive or threatened species expected to occur within the City of Coachella and its Sphere of Influence. As shown in Figure 4.3-3: Active and Proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas near the General Plan Planning Area, of the 2015 Program EIR2
, there is very little CVMSHCP Conservation Land within the Planning Area, occurring in subarea 17 only. Under the CGPU, these areas are proposed for preservation as open space. This was done specifically to comply with the endangered species of the CVMSHCP. Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU identifies 2 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.3-3: Active and Proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas near the General Plan Planning Area. October. 253
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -14 and provides policies for the City to support and adhere to the CVMSHCP (Policies 9.4, 9.5, 10.2, and

10.7).

Proposed Project
No portion of the proposed project site is located within CVMSHCP Conservation Land, as shown by Figure 4.3-3 of the 2015 Program EIR. The City General Plan contains policies (Policies 9.4, 9.5, 10.2, and 10.7) that aim to establish easements to conserve and preserve habitat corridors, whitewater river corridors, wildlife corridors, and sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would not affect biological resources protected by the General Plan policies. Additionally, the City Municipal Code does not include ordinances requiring tree preservation and/or protection. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that although implementation of the CGPU would result in population growth within the City, the CGPU is adequately equipped with land use plans and policies that protect biological resources. Additionally, sensitive habitat areas have been preserved through regional protection plans and agencies including the CVMSHCP and the CGPU are directly compatible with the preservation area of the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that cumulative biological resources impacts associated with the CGPU would be less than significant due to existing policies, land use designations, and requirements of regional plans.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the three Project Areas were included as part of the Planning Area in the analysis of biological resources in the 2015 Program EIR. The proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses including agricultural and vacant/open space uses and would not directly result in a significant loss of wildlife habitat. Furthermore, no portion of the proposed project site is located within CVMSHCP Conservation Land and new development would be subject to existing policies and requirements of the CGPU related to biological resources as summarized above. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
254
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-15

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

3.5.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (Impact 4.4-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that archaeological resources are located throughout the entire Planning Area and development under the CGPU would have the potential to occur around historically significant resources within the Planning Area. Based on the Eastern Information Center (EIC) record search, there are 176 historical resources in the Planning Area and over 159 archaeological resources spread throughout the Planning Area. Many of the 300 plus cultural resources consist of prehistoric habitation sites, trails, historic residential sites, mining sites, and architecturally significant structures. Due to the abundance of cultural resources, the City of Coachella has an existing ordinance (Section 15.48.190) to prevent destruction of or impact to historical resources. Historic resources within the City are protected through federal and State codes that prevent the removal or destruction of any historic resources covering the Planning Area. These existing regulations provide a framework for preventing impacts to historic resources by preventing the removal or destruction of resources without first assessing the value of the resource and documenting its attributes for the historical record. In addition to the existing regulations, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies that address preservation of historical resources (Policies 12.1, 12.3, and 12.4). Due to existing regulatory requirements, the 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources.

Proposed Project
New development under the proposed project would be subject to existing regulations that prevent the removal or destruction of historic resources including the City of Coachella’s Municipal Code, 255
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -16 federal and State codes, and policies included in the CGPU. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that future development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (Impact 4.4-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that archaeological resources are plentiful due to Planning Area’s rich history and historic settlements. The Mecca Hills, Thermal Canyon, and washes north of Thermal Canyon have sites of archaeologically significant trails, mining sites, and other artifacts from previous settlements. Possible sites are also located along land west of the Whitewater River, and within the Downtown core of the City. Development under the CGPU would be subject to existing State regulations that serve to protect and preserve archaeological resources that might be found in the Planning Area. Existing State regulations prevent removal or destruction of paleontological resources without documentation or preservation of such findings, or without determination of a resource being worthy of preservation. Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies that address protection and preservation of archaeological resources (Policies 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5). Due to existing regulatory requirements, the 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU would result in less than significant impacts to archaeological resources.

Proposed Project
New development under the proposed project would be subject to existing regulations that prevent the removal or destruction of archaeological resources including federal and State codes and policies included in the CGPU. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that future development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource.

Per Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City is required to consult with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and any appropriate Native American tribe for the purpose of preserving relevant traditional tribal cultural places (TTCP) prior to the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a city’s general plan. The Final Tribal Guidelines3 recommend that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after receiving notice of the project to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP, and the Final Tribal Guidelines allocate another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult with the local government to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public review time frame.
3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2005. State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. November 14.
256
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-17 The City sent letters describing the project and maps depicting the project site on January 17, 2023, to Native American contacts that had previously requested to be contacted by the City for potential consultation and received three responses. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla requested consultation and the City met with the tribe on Monday, February 13, 2023, to discuss the project. After this meeting, they requested no further consultation. Both the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians submitted a letter requesting no consultation. Therefore, the SB 18 consultation process has concluded and is considered completed as of April 27, 2023.

As part of the SB 18 consultation, no TTCPs were identified. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? (Impact 4.4-3)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the western and southern portions of the Planning Area have a low sensitivity, or probability, for having paleontological resources and the eastern portion of the Planning Area has high sensitivity for occurrence of paleontological resources. Much of the eastern portion of the Planning Area where there is high sensitivity of paleontological resources is proposed for open space and preservation under the CGPU. Additionally, existing State and federal regulations, including the Antiquities Act of 106, Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code, and Penal Code Section 622.5, prevent the removal or destruction of any resource without presenting the findings and restricting and preserving the resources, or determining if resources are not worthy of reporting. Furthermore, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies to better ensure the proper treatment and protection of paleontological resources (Policies

10.3, 10.4, 10.5, and 12.5). Due to existing regulatory requirements, the 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources.

Proposed Project
New development under the proposed project would be subject to existing regulations that prevent the removal or destruction of paleontological resources including federal and State codes and policies included in the CGPU. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that future development would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site.

Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
257
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -18 d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (Impact 4.4-4)
2015 Program EIR
Human remains are determined to be non-renewable remains or resources of past land activity and are categorized based on their sensitivity from human impacts, into high and low sensitivity. Prior analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that areas of low paleontological sensitivity within the Planning Area are the Ocotillo Conglomerate located north of the Mecca Hills, and the Recent (Holocene) Alluvium located in the east side of the Planning Area at the hill base. The location of these formations is located in an area that is not planned for development under the CGPU. The Mecca Hills, and hill bases, are to have little to no development along the timeline of the CGPU, and are to be preserved while development will increase in the western portion of the City. There is potential for human remains to occur on Tribal Lands. The exact location of human remains on Tribal Lands would require a Sacred Lands Search through the Native American Heritage Commission. Considering the history of the Coachella Valley, there is potential for discovery of human remains under the implementation of the CGPU. However, existing regulations including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9-5097.998 protect human remains and prevent the removal or destruction of any resource without presenting the findings, or determining if resources are not worthy of reporting.

Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies that are intended to protect paleontological resources (Policies 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 12.5, and 12.6). The 2015 Program EIR also identified a mitigation measure to reduce impacts from implementation of the CGPU to less than significant levels:

Mitigation Measure Prior to adoption of the Final EIR and CGPU, update CGPU add policy the following policy to Chapter 7: In areas where there is a high chance that human remains may be present, require proposed projects to conduct survey to establish occurrence of human remains, if any. If human remains are discovered on proposed project sites, the project must implement mitigation measures to prevent impacts to human remains in order to receive permit approval.

Proposed Project
New development under the proposed project would be subject to existing regulations that prevent the removal or disturbance of human remains including federal and State codes and policies included in the CGPU. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that future development would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site.

Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that although implementation of the CGPU would result in population growth and additional development within the City, which could impact 258
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-19 cultural resources, existing regulatory requirements would adequately reduce potential impacts to cultural resources. Through a combination of the development review process, regulations and policies of the CGPU, land development strategies within the CGPU, and existing federal and State regulations, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to the CGPU.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, new development under the proposed project would be subject to existing regulations, including the City of Coachella Municipal Code, federal and State codes, and policies included in the CGPU, that prevent the removal or destruction of cultural resources. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that future development would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including 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?
b. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving strong Seismic Ground Shaking?
c. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
d. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides?
e. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
f. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
g. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code creating
substantial risks to life or property?
259
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -20 Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
h. Have 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?
i. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be a value to the region and
the residents of the state?
j. Result in loss of availability of locally important
mineral resources recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific plan, or any other land
use plan?

3.6.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including 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? (Impact 4.5-1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that portions of the Planning Area are within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, proper enforcement of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which requires regulation of development projections that occur within the zones, would significantly reduce potential impacts from fault rupture. Additionally, before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. A site-specific evaluation and written report must be prepared by a licensed geologist for individual projects. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet). The CGPU also proposes a comprehensive policy program to provide mechanisms for identifying and avoiding threats from fault rupture. The CGPU governs how development is designed and constructed to proactively address the potential fault rupture hazard and prevent the creation of significant fault rupture related hazards. The Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies to help prevent fault related hazards (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, and

8.10). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at threat of fault rupture would be constructed with the appropriate seismic upgrades, and impacts would be less than significant. 260
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-21 Proposed Project
A portion of the Northern Project Area is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as shown in Figure 4.5-3: Faults and Fault Zones, of the 2015 Program EIR4 . As previously discussed, the
proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations and the proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses. Furthermore, any future development within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone would be subject to existing State regulations and existing policies within the CGPU. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at threat of fault rupture would be constructed with the appropriate seismic upgrades. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving strong Seismic Ground Shaking? (Impact 4.5-2) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the entire Planning Area has an above-average likelihood of ground shaking risk, with the greatest risks found along the fault zones and in the potential fault areas. However, new development would be subject to existing construction regulations and guidelines, including the California Building Code, which would ensure that structures are built with proper reinforcement to prevent structure failure. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies to address safety concerns pertaining to seismic ground shaking (Policies 1.3, 1.5, and 2.7). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development would be built to withstand ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The proposed project is located within an area that is at high risk for ground shaking during a seismic event. However, new development would be subject to existing construction regulations and guidelines, including the California Building Code, and policies within the CGPU that would address safety concerns pertaining to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at risk for seismic ground shaking would be constructed with the appropriate seismic upgrades. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 4 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.5-3: Faults and Fault Zones. October. 261
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -22 c. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Impact 4.5-3)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that there is a high potential for liquefaction from seismic events throughout the Planning Area. The western portion of the Planning Area has the highest potential for liquefaction and the eastern portion has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The City of Coachella, along with State and federal agencies, has restrictions and requirements for development design and location that lead to reduced impacts from seismic-related ground failure. In accordance with the State-mandated Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA), all projects within a Statedelineated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction must be evaluated by a Certified Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Civil Engineer. Further, the SHMA specifies that the lead agency may withhold development permits until site-specific geologic or soils investigations are conducted and mitigation measures are incorporated into project plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. These regulations restrict development from occurring in areas subject to liquefaction, or require site-specific designs that eliminate risks associated with liquefaction, and reduce risks to structures from failures caused by liquefaction. Through the development review process of proposed structures in the Planning Area, a site-by-site analysis is required to determine if structures are allowable, or to assess building design and check that proposed structures meet existing regulations or applicable codes. Furthermore, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies to reduce the risk of liquefaction by requiring liquefaction assessment studies, liquefaction mitigation, and critical facility siting (Policies 1.6, 1.7, and 2.8). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that existing regulatory requirements would reduce impacts from liquefaction to less than significant levels.

Proposed Project
The Western Project Area and portions of the Southern Project Area are located within a high liquefaction susceptibility zone as shown in Figure 4.5-5: Liquefaction Risk, of the 2015 Program EIR5
. However, new development would be subject to existing construction regulations and guidelines, including the California Building Code and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and policies within the CGPU that would address safety concerns pertaining to liquefaction, including preparation of site-specific geologic or soils investigations and implementation of project-specific measures, as necessary. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at risk for liquefaction would be constructed with the appropriate seismic upgrades. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
5 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.5-5: Liquefaction Risk. October. 262
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-23 d. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? (Impact 4.5-4) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that slope instability would be a potential hazard as development encroaches into the hills in the northeastern part of the Planning Area. The geologic unit forming most of the hills is generally resistant to large-scale land sliding, so future slope failures are more likely to consist of surficial failures and erosion of sandy geologic materials. Such failures typically occur during exceptional and/or prolonged rainfall and may manifest as mud or debris flows. Larger slope failures could occur in the hills underlain by the Palm Spring Formation due to the presence of clay beds and deformation by the San Andreas Fault. Cut slopes in this area will most likely need remedial grading to meet minimum engineering requirements. Portions of the Mecca Hills in the southeasternmost section of the General Plan area are underlain by bedrock assigned to the Palm Spring Formation. Faults, joints, and fractures have formed several wedges of rock that are precariously attached to the slope faces; strong shaking during an earthquake is likely to topple these rocks posing a rockfall hazard to areas adjacent to and below these slopes. The U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States and Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Map (USGS 1982) indicates the Planning Area has a low (less than 1.5 percent of area involved) landslide incidence. Additionally, the Land Use and Community Character and Safety Elements of the CGPU include policies to address the potential hazard associated with landslides (Policy 2.15 of the Land Use and Community Character Element and Policies 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of the Safety Element). Therefore, because existing development restrictions and CGPU policies would limit the siting of buildings in hazardous areas and enact additional safety requirements relative to construction and design activities, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from landslides would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Portions of the Northern Project Area are located within a low-to-moderate landslide potential area, as shown in Figure 4.5-6: Landslide Risk, of the 2015 Program EIR6 . However, new development
would be subject to existing construction regulations and guidelines, including the California Building Code and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and policies within the CGPU that would address safety concerns pertaining to landslides. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at risk of landslides would be constructed appropriately with suitable mitigation implemented if necessary. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. e. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Impact 4.5-7) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the potential for soil erosion within the Planning Area ranges from slight to moderate. In the Coachella General Plan area, the unconsolidated sediments in the 6 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.5-6: Landslide Risk. October. 263
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -24 canyon bottoms and valley floor, as well as the granular semi-consolidated sediments forming the hills, are generally the most susceptible to erosion. In particular, the hills north and northwest of the Mecca Hills are underlain by softer sediments assigned to the Ocotillo Formation. Because much of the runoff travels through the area in natural washes and gullies, and by sheet flow, sedimentation is locally a hazard. Natural erosion processes are often accelerated by man’s activities, including the removal of protective vegetation, modification of natural drainage patterns and construction of slopes that may be more susceptible to erosion than the natural slope conditions. Development also reduces the surface area available for infiltration, leading to increased flooding, erosion, and downstream sedimentation. The City of Coachella requires that project plans include both temporary and permanent erosion control features. Construction must comply with the projectspecific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), which specify erosion control measures and are approved as part of the project site’s grading plans.

In addition, the Land Use and Community Character, Safety, and Sustainability and Natural Environment Elements of the CGPU propose several policies that would address potential erosion impacts (Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 of the Safety Element, Policy 2.15 of the Land Use and Community Character Element, and Policies 7.1, 7.3, and 7.4 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element). Existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development would be managed and developed appropriately to prevent substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Therefore, because existing development restrictions and CGPU policies would limit the erosion potential associated with future development, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from erosion would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Portions of the Western Project Area and Southern Project Area are located within a high-to-veryhigh erosion potential area, as shown in Figure 4.5-8: Erosion Potential, of the 2015 Program EIR7 .

However, new development would be subject to existing regulatory requirements for both temporary and permanent erosion control including the preparation, approval, and implementation of a SWPPP, BMPs, and CGPU policies that would address potential erosion impacts. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements would ensure that future development that might be at risk of erosion would be managed and developed appropriately to prevent substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
f. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Impact 4.5-5) 2015 Program EIR
Land subsidence is the gradual, local settling or shrinking of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may also be caused by liquefaction, groundwater withdrawal, oil or gas withdrawal, and hydroconsolidation. During very large earthquakes, it is possible for subsidence or seismically induced settlement to occur in loose granular soils in flat or gently sloped portions of 7 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.5-8: Erosion Potential. October. 264
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-25 areas as the result of intense ground shaking. Differential settlement, a form of seismic-induced settlement, can occur along areas where the depth to bedrock varies abruptly, such as along the edges of alluvial basins. Prior analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that the entire Planning Area is considered to have active subsidence, and this can be a long-term hazard to existing and future development. Additionally, significant subsidence has been documented in other parts of the valley (Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta), where the subsidence and associated ground fissuring have been attributed to groundwater withdrawal. However, the CGPU includes policies aimed at limiting development in high-risk areas and requiring site-specific studies to determine individual risk and develop appropriate design strategies (Policies 2.1, 2.9, and 2.15). Therefore, because existing development restrictions and CGPU policies would limit the siting of buildings in hazardous areas and require implementation of additional safety measures during construction and design activities, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from unstable soils or geologic units would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
New development within the proposed project area would be required to undergo geotechnical and engineering geological investigations that address site-specific geologic hazards at the project site as stipulated by the CGPU. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements, including CGPU policies would ensure that future development located on unstable soil or an unstable geologic unit would be designed and constructed with suitable mitigation implemented, as necessary. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
g. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? (Impact 4.5-6) 2015 Program EIR
Expansive soils generally result from having high percentages of expansive clay minerals. These finegrained soils can undergo substantial increases and decreases in volume, with an increase and decrease in water content. If not adequately addressed, expansive soils can cause extensive damage to structures and paving. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the Planning Area is subject to potential expansive soil hazards in the vicinity of the Thermal Airport and along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks near the Planning Area’s southern border. Soils that generally occur in the southern portion of the Planning Area (Imperial and Salton soil series) are considered to have a low-to-high expansion potential. Soils derived from weathering of consolidated sedimentary rocks in the Mecca Hills in and around the San Andreas Fault Zone are also considered to have a moderate expansion potential. However, due to the sporadic nature of clay sedimentary bedrock and fault gouge, the Mecca Hills area could not be assigned an expansive soil classification. The California Building Standards Code contains minimum requirements for construction on expansive soils. Development in the Planning Area would comply with the California Building Standard Codes to ensure structures are sound and engineered to reduce impacts from expansive soils. These codes outline minimum criteria for the structure and maintenance of buildings to provide stable buildings that can handle, or reduce impacts from, geological hazards. In addition, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that require a site-specific geotechnical investigation be conducted for future development 265
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -26 projects (Policy 2.1). Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements within the California Building Standards Code and CGPU, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Portions of the proposed project may be located in areas that are subject to potential expansive soil hazards. However, new development within the proposed Project Area would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical investigation and implement site-specific recommendations and would be subject to the California Building Standards Code, which contains minimum requirements for construction on expansive soil. Existing regulatory requirements, including CGPU policies, would ensure that future development located on expansive soil would be designed and constructed with suitable mitigation implemented, as necessary. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. h. Would the project have 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? (Impact 4.5-8)
2015 Program EIR
Some soils that are particularly shallow or rocky may be inadequate for on-site treatment of wastewater via a septic system. Soils must be sufficiently deep and absorbent to allow the percolation of sewage into the soil without daylighting to the surface, where people could come into contact with pathogens. Additionally, in some cases, septic systems could result in localized impacts such as liquefaction or slope instability. The 2015 Program EIR determined that most soil types within the gently sloped or flatter portions of the Planning Area are of sufficient thickness to preclude effluent from being introduced directly into fractured rock or to daylight to the ground surface. The soils of the Mecca Hills are considered to have a moderate-to-high susceptibility to slope instability and groundwater quality impacts from effluent disposal. However, the City currently requires proposed septic systems to follow the standards of the Riverside County Environmental Health Department for on-site wastewater disposal systems. When applications are submitted to the City, the Engineering Department reviews and approves proposals that satisfy regulatory requirements. Additionally, the Safety Element and Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU include policies that require on-site testing for project-specific improvements, including septic systems and policies to protect water quality (Policy 2.1 of the Safety Element and Policies 7.1 and 7.4 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element). With the City’s review and approval of septic system design and implementation of CGPU policies, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from installation of septic tanks would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
No portion of the Project Area is within an existing sewer service area. Therefore, any new development within the Project Area would require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As previously discussed, new septic systems would be required to follow the standards of the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and the Engineering 266
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-27 Department would review and approve proposals for consistency with regulatory requirements.

Additionally, the Safety Element and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU include policies that require on-site testing for project-specific improvements, including septic systems and policies to protect water quality. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements, septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be developed in areas with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of these systems. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. i. Would the project result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? (Impact 4.5-9) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that existing and potential mineral resources in the Planning Area include sand and gravel, clay, oil and gas, and geothermal. Land within the City boundaries is classified as Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)- 1, which is defined as an area where available geological information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources. Portions of Subarea 17 of the Planning Area are classified as MRZ-2a Portland cement concrete (PCC), which is defined as areas where geologic data indicates that significant measured or indicated mineral resources are present. There are two existing permitted mining operations within the MRZ-2a (PCC) area including the Coronet Concrete – Palm Desert Rock Sand Mine, and Coachella Valley Aggregates – Fargo Canyon Mine. The CGPU Land Use Designation of Subarea 17 is Open Space, and mining activity is a permitted use. The Land Use Plan of the CGPU was designed to reflect the potential mineral resources and largely designates land as Open Space to protect these resources. Furthermore, current State regulation protects sensitive mineral resources and prohibits the removal of mineral resources in California as an environmental impact reduction and resource preservation strategy. The mining of mineral resources in the Planning Area is prohibited or limited under existing regulations. Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes policies that provide additional measures to protect mineral resources (Policies 8.1,

8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not result in any loss of mineral availability and there would be no potential impact to mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.

Proposed Project
No portion of the proposed project area is used for mining operations or is located within an area classified as MRZ-2, as shown in Figure 4.5-9: Mineral Resources, of the 2015 Program EIR8 and Figure 4.12.1: Mineral Resource Areas, of the County of Riverside General Plan EIR9 . Additionally,
existing State regulations and policies within the CGPU protect mineral resources and serve to prevent the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. With State regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no 8 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.5-9: Mineral Resources. October. 9 County of Riverside. 2003. Riverside County General Plan Final Program EIR, Figure 4.12.1: Mineral Resource Areas.
267
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -28 new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
j. Would the project result in loss of availability of locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or any other land use plan? (Impact 4.5-10) 2015 Program EIR
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.6.i. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the current regulatory framework protecting mineral resources prevents negative environmental impacts from the loss of mineral resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.6.i. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that although the CGPU would result in new development and an increase in population that could be exposed to geologic hazards, each project would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis in accordance with CEQA, the California Building Standards Code, the Coachella Municipal Code, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and the requirements of the policies of the proposed CGPU. Therefore, if a specific site were determined to create a significant impact that could not be feasibly mitigated, the site would not be approved for development. The 2015 Program EIR concluded that existing regulations and policies within the CGPU would ensure that new development would be minimally impacted from geological hazards and would not have a cumulative impact on the region. Therefore, implementation of the CGPU would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to seismic and geologic hazards.

Proposed Project. As discussed above, any new development proposed within the Project Area would be subject to site-specific review for geologic hazards. Existing regulations and policies within the CGPU would ensure that new development would be minimally impacted from geological hazards and would not have a cumulative impact on the region. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
268
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-29

3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h. 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?

3.7.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Impact 4.6-1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU includes industrial and commercial land uses that could indirectly contribute to the temporary or continuous transportation 269
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -30 of hazardous materials. Events that could expose the existing environment and population to hazardous materials include operating emissions, spills, accidents, explosions, and leaks that would cause temporary or permanent damage to the environment and population in the Planning Area.

There is potential for hazardous materials to be transported along regional highways (State Routes 86 and 111, and Interstate 10) that run through the Planning Area. Due to the recognized risks of transporting hazardous materials, existing regulations manage the transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements and certification of drivers, and signage specific to vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address the transportation of hazardous materials (Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5). The 2015 Program EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations and implementation of CGPU policies would reduce potential future risk and environmental impacts to less than significant levels by requiring safe transport, ongoing vehicle inspections, State licensing of transporters, and effective response to spills.

Proposed Project
The proposed project does not include any land designations for industrial or commercial uses, but the transportation of hazardous materials may be required for future construction and agricultural operations within the planning area. However, transportation of hazardous materials would be subject to existing regulations and CGPU policies requiring safe transport, ongoing vehicle inspections, State licensing of transporters, and effective response to spills. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Impact 4.6-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the most likely occurrence of an impact occurring through the release of hazardous materials would occur on industrial land in the City, where hazardous materials are most likely to be used or stored. However, there is an extensive framework of State and federal laws regulating the safe use, storage, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous waste. Given the framework of standards and regulations governing the safe use, storage, and clean-up of hazardous materials, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The land uses associated with the proposed project (agricultural, residential, commercial, and public facilities) would not require the use of extensive hazardous materials. As discussed in the 2015 Program EIR, the most likely occurrence of an impact occurring through the release of hazardous materials would occur on industrial land in the City, where hazardous materials are most likely to be used or stored. The extensive framework of existing State and federal regulations governing the safe use, storage, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous waste would ensure that future development in the 270
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-31 proposed Project Area would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Impact 4.6-3)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR discussed that hazardous emissions released in an environment can lead to negative impacts, especially when emissions are exposed to sensitive receptors including elderly care facilities, hospitals, and schools. Hazardous emissions in high concentrations close to locations where school age children convene daily expose a high percentage of youth to harmful materials that could lead to negative health impacts. The Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies and outlines development constraints for land uses that could release emissions near schools (Policies

5.3, 6.6, 6.14, and 6.15). The 2015 Program EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations and CGPU policies would ensure that environmental impacts to schools from hazardous emissions would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The College of the Desert, East Valley Campus, is located within the Southern Project Area. No other schools are located within 0.25 mile of the three Project Areas. The land uses associated with the proposed project (agricultural, residential, commercial, and public facilities) would not require the use of extensive hazardous materials. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing CGPU policies that include development constraints for land uses that could release emissions near schools. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Impact 4.6-4) 2015 Program EIR
At the time of the 2015 Program EIR, the Planning Area had one registered site containing hazardous materials pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Foster-Gardner Inc. pesticide and fertilizer parcel is located in CGPU Subarea 4 at 1577 First Street, and stores herbicides, insecticides, nematocides, fungicides and other hazardous materials. Because of the existing and historical uses associated with the Foster-Gardner Inc. property, future development of any hospital, school, daycare centers, agriculture, and groundwater uses is prohibited on the site via a deed restriction file with Riverside County. The Safety Element of the CGGP includes policies that address strategies to prevent negative environmental impacts of hazardous material sites (Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 271
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -32

5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11). The 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts are considered less than significant because compliance with existing regulations and implementation of policies from the CGPU would reduce environmental impacts on future hazardous waste sites and because there is only one listed hazardous waste site that is in remediation and restricted for certain uses.

Proposed Project
There are no registered sites containing hazardous materials pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 within the project area.10 Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address strategies to prevent negative environmental impacts of hazardous material sites.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Impact 4.6-5) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the Planning Area is within proximity of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (Thermal Airport) in the southern portion of the Planning Area.

Development in this area is guided to comply with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Riverside County 2005) airport. Additionally, the Land Use and Community Character element of the CGPU includes policies that would apply to any area in the City within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Policies 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations and implementation of policies in the CGPU would ensure that impacts on populations residing or working within 2 miles of a public airport would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As shown in Figure 4.6-1: General Plan Land Use Map with Airport Compatibility Zone, of the 2015 Program EIR11, no portion of the proposed project is located within the Airport Compatibility Zones of the Thermal Airport. Therefore, there would be no impact and no new or substantially sever impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 10 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE& site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND +SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST (accessed April 10, 2023). 11 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.6-1: General Plan Land Use Map with Airport Compatibility Zone. October.
272
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-33 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Impact 4.6-6) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Planning Area. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Proposed Project
As discussed in the 2015 Program EIR, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Impact 4.6-7) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the Planning Area requires evacuation and emergency planning given the natural and manmade environmental hazards associated with the Planning Area.

The CGPU includes an extensive policy framework that provides for the preparation and implementation of plans and procedures that would establish and/or maintain response plans and evacuation procedures to address emergency response needs and prevent any conflicts with existing plans. The Safety Element of the CGPU includes various policies that address hazards, plan compliance, and new plans that aim to protect populations and the environment in emergencies (Policies 3.7, 4.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15, 8.16, and

8.17). Therefore, with implementation of the CGPU policies, the CGPU concluded that interference with existing emergency or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. New development would be required to comply with existing emergency response plans and would be subject to policies in the CGPU aimed at preventing the interference with any plans and addressing hazards. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. h. Would the project 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? (Impact 4.6-8) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the natural landscapes and agriculture lands adjacent to urban development in the Planning Area present urban-wildland interface areas at risk of wildfires. 273
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -34 Additionally, as development grows under the CGPU, urban and residential development could grow closer to natural landscapes. However, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element and the Safety Element of the CGPU include policies that aim to protect structures and population from wildland fires (Policy 5.8 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element and Policies 4.1, 4.2,

4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 7.6 of the Safety Element). Therefore, with implementation of CGPU policies and compliance with federal, State, and local agency regulations, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
The project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and has not been designated as a high or very high fire hazard severity zone.12 The proposed project includes agricultural areas that present an urban-wildland interface and could be at risk of wildfires. However, as previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. Additionally, new development would be subject to existing CGPU policies that aim to protect structures, open space, and population from wildland fires. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Hazardous Materials Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that potential exposure or leaks of hazardous materials, natural disasters, or accidents causing environmental damage to existing conditions in the Planning Area could cause cumulative impacts to the region. Additionally, the Planning Area is located in close proximity to many natural resources including Whitewater River, Coachella Canal, Joshua Tree National Forest, and the Salton Sea. These resources make up a broader ecosystem that supports countless wildlife and natural communities, including sensitive habitats. Impacts on these systems from use, disposal, processing, or creation of hazardous materials, and impacts from natural disasters, could create irreversible negative impacts on the overall ecosystem within the Planning Area. However, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that the CGPU has recognized the environmental sensitivity within the Planning Area, and the potential harmful impacts that both human activity and natural environments can expose each other to from natural, manmade, and hazardous events, and has created a range of policies to address these risks. Therefore, because of the extensive existing State and federal regulations and policies included in the CGPU that regulate development and reduce impacts of hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project. As discussed above, the extensive framework of existing State and federal regulations and policies within the CGPU governing the safe use, storage, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous waste would ensure that future development in the proposed project area would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials. No new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
12 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Riverside County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. November 21. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ uk1pvwva/ fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_riverside_ada.pdf (accessed June 8, 2023). 274
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-35

3.8 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or sedimentation
on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e. 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?
f. Substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
275
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -36

3.8.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Impact 4.7-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU would result in the growth of the Planning Area from a small town to a mid-sized city, increasing both development and supporting infrastructure that could cause existing waterways to be negatively affected by direct or indirect impacts related to additional development and activity within the Planning Area. However, future development would be subject to existing federal, State, and local water quality regulations that serve to monitor water quality and prevent degradation of water quality, including the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Regional Water Quality Control Plans, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and recycled water regulations. Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU requires development to comply with existing regulations and prevent negative impacts on water quality (Policies 7.1 and 7.4). The 2015 Program EIR determined impacts related to violating State or federal regulations or standards from development under the CGPU would be less than significant with existing regulatory requirement compliance and implementation of CGPU policies.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. New development would be subject to the same existing federal, State, and local water quality regulations and policies within the CGPU discussed above that are structured to preserve and protect water quality within the Planning Area.

Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Impact 4.7-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the groundwater supply for the Planning Area comes from the Whitewater River Basin, which currently holds 9,116 acre-feet. The Lower Whitewater River Basin water is pulled by the Coachella Valley Water District and allocated to various jurisdictions including the City of Coachella. The Lower Whitewater River Basin currently meets demands of the Planning Area, and expected water demands associated with the CGPU represent a small proportion of the overall groundwater capacity. Additionally, the CGPU Water Supply Assessment13 concludes the development of the CGPU would have enough water supply to achieve the projected build-out 13 City of Coachella. 2013. Coachella General Plan Update Water Supply Assessment. 276
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-37 of 135,000 residents. However, the potential for water overdraft and significant groundwater depletion is possible. Water overdraft, without equivalent recharge, could create long-term impacts on regional water supply. In recent years, groundwater overdraft has caused a consistent decrease in ground water supply level. As the Planning Area population grows, additional water supply will be necessary to maintain adequate level of activity and development. The Coachella Valley Urban Water Management Plan (CVUWMP) has outlined several strategies to increase and diversify water supply to meet future demands. In addition, the Land Use and Community Character Element, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element, the Safety Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element of the CGPU include policies addressing water supply and conservation (Policies 2.6, 5.15, 14.1, and 14.4 of the Land Use and Community Character Element; Policies 1.17,

1.19, 3.1 through 3.8, and 5.4 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element; Policy 2.9 of the Safety Element; and Policies 2.1, 2.5 through 2.8, 2.10, and 2.12 through 2.20 of the Infrastructure and Public Services Element). The 2015 Program EIR determined that environmental impacts from the increased demand and water extraction are adequately reduced through policy and water management plans and because of all efforts to conserve water use and recharge groundwater basins, impacts on groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Additionally, future development would be subject to water supply and conservation policies included in the CGPU and CVUWMP and would be required to demonstrate that sufficient water supply would be available to serve future projects in the proposed project area. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or sedimentation on- or off-site? (Impact 4.7-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the main waterways within the Planning Area include the Whitewater River and the Coachella Canal. The Whitewater River is partially channelized and could be subject to impacts from water runoff or erosions from adjacent land use development under the CGPU. Additional erosion could be realized from local changes in runoff or from construction activities that disturb the soil. Potential erosion effects could negatively impact the natural environment for fish and wildlife resources and expose structures or populations to unexpected erosion. However, the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, and Streambed Alteration Agreements prohibit development that would alter waterways from erosion or runoff. Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes additional supporting policies to address potential erosion impacts (Policies 7.3 and 10.6). Due to the existing regulatory framework and implementation of the CGPU policies, the 2015 Program EIR determined that erosion or sedimentation impacts would be less than significant. 277
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -38 Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. New development would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulatory requirements including the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Program, Streambed Alteration Agreements, and policies that address erosion impacts within the CGPU. Therefore, with existing regulatory requirement compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR.

No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Impact 4.7-4)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that changes made in existing drainage patterns, streams, or rivers could create new waterways that may or may not be able to properly drain water flow patterns that occur within the Planning Area. Flooding occurrence within the Planning Area from the alteration of any stream or river could create permanent impacts on waterway patterns and habitat, and result in flooding. Flooding exposes structures, habitat, or wildlife to negative impacts of unexpected or reoccurring floods that would cause temporary or permanent damage to property, natural environments, or drainage patterns. The CGPU does not specifically plan for any changes in drainage patterns that would alter runoff and cause negative impacts from flooding. Development within the CGPU Planning Area would be required to recognize and assess site drainage patterns prior to construction as to not disrupt existing drainage patterns and to prevent flood risk.

Additionally, the Sustainability and Natural Environment and the Infrastructure and Public Services Elements of the CGPU include policies that address potential impacts from drainage changes (Policies 4.5, 7.6, 10.9, and 13.12). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that potential impacts of flooding would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project does not specifically plan for any changes in drainage patterns that would alter runoff and cause negative impacts from flooding. Future development would be required to assess site drainage patterns prior to construction as to not disrupt existing drainage patterns and would be subject to existing policies within the CGPU that address potential impacts from drainage changes. Therefore, with implementation of the CGPU policies and compliance with existing regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
278
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-39 e. Would the project 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? (Impact 4.7-5)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that additional development could cause additional potential harm from runoff and pollution of waterways because the amount of litter, acid rain, oil, fertilizers, and other sediments being swept away by a moving water source through rain, flooding, or stormwater drainage systems would increase as human activity increases. However, existing regulations including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program regulate point source and nonpoint source pollution. For point source discharges, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. For nonpoint source discharges, NPDES permits require implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants in urban stormwater discharge to the maximum extent practicable. Current and future projects within the Planning Area are required to comply with regulations from NPDES Permits and regulate any site runoff so that it would not be a pollutant source into the waterways of the Planning Area, or the region. Additionally, the Land Use Element, the Infrastructure and Public Facilities Element, and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU include policies that address potential impacts of polluted runoff and stress on the existing drainage system (Policies 2.4 and 10.2 of the Land Use and Community Character Element; Policies 1.1, 1.6, 4.1 through 4.9 of the Infrastructure and Public Facilities Element; and Policy 7.2 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that although there is potential for runoff to exceed existing drainage system capacity, the existing regulatory framework, including the CGPU policies, would ensure that development and activities follow criteria to reduce runoff impacts by limiting volumes of stormwater discharge and treating stormwater runoff prior to discharge, and impacts would be less than significant.

No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
f. Would the project substantially degrade water quality? (Impact 4.7-6) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU may increase the potential for water quality degradation. Impacts on water quality could cause irreversible effects on potable water or degradation of waterways within the Planning Area. From runoff pollution, lack of 279
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -40 replenishment, or contamination, water quality could be compromised without conscious planning to reduce potential impacts. Water quality within the Planning Area is controlled by the Coachella Valley Water District in conjunction with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRBRWQCB). Also, the Clean Water Act, including Section 401, regulates any activity which may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Projects must obtain State Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards. Enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, developments that would negatively impact water quality standards would not receive certification and would not be allowed to build or operate within the Planning Area. Additionally, the Sustainable and Natural Environment Element and the Safety Element of the CGPU include policies that address maintaining water quality (Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element and Policy 6.15 of the Safety Element). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts to water quality would be less than significant with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies to monitor and preserve safe water quality and limit the type of pollutants that can be discharged to water bodies.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. Future development would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations that address water quality including the Clean Water Act Section 401, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the NPDES Program, and policies within the CGPU. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements and CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
g. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Impact 4.7-7)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that potential flood sources within the Planning Area come from the Whitewater River and its upstream tributaries, the streams entering the Coachella Valley from the mountains northeast and southwest of the valley sides, and summer monsoons. Areas designated as 100-year flood hazard areas within the Planning Area occur along the banks of the Whitewater River. The CGPU does not plan for housing to be developed along the river banks, though there is residential land use west of the river. In addition to this zone, there is a large portion of the Planning Area west of the Coachella Canal that is designated as a 500-year flood zone or 100- year flood zone with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile, and areas that are protected by levees from a 100-year flood. This flood zone area largely covers existing urban and agriculture development and proposed new development areas under the CGPU. In response to land located within flood zones, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that local governments covered by federal flood insurance pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. The development criteria for structures located within 100-year flood zones 280
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-41 are in place to engineer and prevent buildings from being negatively impacted in the event of a 100- year flood. The Floodplain Management Section of the Coachella Valley Water District has implemented Riverside Country Ordinance 458 for projects located within floodplains. Projects proposing development in a floodplain will be subject to a plan check in order to receive a Floodplain Permit from the office of Building and Safety. This permitting process will help in preventing harm or damage to structures or people from flooding. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address monitoring, construction, and emergency planning for development within flood zones (Policies 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.11, and 3.12). Therefore, with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies and ordinances regarding development in a 100-year floodplain, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from flooding would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As shown in Figure 4.7-2: Flood Hazards, of the 2015 Program EIR14, the Western and Southern Project Areas contain moderate and low risk flood zones. The Northern Project area is located within an area outside of the 500-year flood zone. Any future development located in flood zones would be subject to Riverside County Ordinance 458 and required to receive a Floodplain Permit. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address monitoring, construction, and emergency planning for development within flood zones (Policies 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.11, and 3.12).

Therefore, with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
h. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Impact 4.7-8)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that 100-year flood hazard zones within the Planning Area occur along the banks of the Whitewater River. Additionally, the Planning Area includes a 500-year flood hazard zone that covers the majority of the western portion of the Planning Area, where a 100-year flood could occur. The western portion of the Planning Area contains existing urban development and would include new development under the build out of the CGPU. Because development under the CGPU would occur within the 500-year flood hazard zone, where 100-year floods could create flooding less than one-foot in depth, there is potential for impact from structures and the redirection of flood flows within the Planning Area. Continued development in these areas could potentially impede or redirect flood flows that would create new barriers for natural flood flows without proper infrastructure protection and could inundate the Planning Area. In response to this potential risk, the Whitewater River has been channelized and can hold twice the amount of the 42,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) volume that would occur in a 100-year flood. This infrastructure would reduce impacts from flood hazards and the associated structures within flood hazard zones and address potential threats from flooding. Additionally, FEMA requires local governments covered by federal flood insurance to pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies 14 City of Coachella. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR, Figure 4.7-2: Flood Hazards. October. 281
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -42 minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. The Floodplain Management Section of the Coachella Valley Water District has implemented Riverside Country Ordinance 458 for projects located within floodplains. Projects requesting to develop in a floodplain would be subject to a plan check in order to receive a Floodplain Permit from the City of Coachella Office of Building and Safety. Additionally, the Land Use and Community Character Element and the Safety Element of the CGPU include policies and development guidelines to address flooding hazards (Policy 2.18 of the Land Use and Community Character Element and Policies 3.1 through 3.4,

3.6 through 3.8, 3.10 through 3.12, and 8.12 of the Safety Element). Due to the existing regulatory framework protecting structures located within the 100-year flood zone and the existing infrastructure along the Whitewater River including levees and channelized river portions, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts to flood flows would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As shown in Figure 4.7-2: Flood Hazards, of the 2015 Program EIR, the Western and Southern Project Areas contain moderate and low risk flood zones. The Northern Project Area is located within an area outside of the 500-year flood zone. Any future development located in flood zones would be subject to Riverside County Ordinance 458 and required to receive a Floodplain Permit. Additionally, the Land Use and Community Character Element and the Safety Element of the CGPU include policies and development guidelines to address flooding hazards (Policy 2.18 of the Land Use and Community Character Element and Policies 3.1 through 3.4, 3.6 through 3.8, 3.10 through 3.12, and

8.12 of the Safety Element). Therefore, with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Impact 4.7-9) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that existing infrastructure that protects the Planning Area from flooding includes the channelization and levees of the Whitewater River and the East Side Dike. The Whitewater River infrastructure is built to hold double the amount of water that would flow in a 100-year flood (42,000 cfs). The East Side Dike protects the northeastern portion of the Planning Area from mudflow from the mountains and directs flow to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Failure of these structures could potentially result from structural failure during seismic activity. These structural failures would expose housing, structures, and natural environments within the Planning Area to flooding or mudslides and could result in structure loss, injury, and impacts on natural habitat. However, the existing regulatory framework discussed above for housing located within floodplains, which are the areas most susceptible to flooding from levee failure, provides an impact reduction strategy from levee or dam failure. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address flooding, emergency awareness, and planning (Policies 3.4 through 3.7 and 3.9). Therefore, with existing regulation compliance, implementation of CGPU policies, and development land use standards, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from levee or dam failure would be less than significant.
282
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-43 Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. As shown in Figure 4.7-2: Flood Hazards, of the 2015 Program EIR, the Western and Southern Project Areas contain moderate and low risk flood zones. The Northern Project Area is located within an area outside of the 500-year flood zone.

As discussed above, areas located within floodplains would be most susceptible to flooding from dam or levee failure. Any future development located in flood zones would be subject to Riverside County Ordinance 458 and required to receive a Floodplain Permit. Additionally, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address flooding, emergency awareness, and planning (Policies

3.4 through 3.7 and 3.9). Therefore, with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Impact 4.7-10) 2015 Program EIR
As discussed in the 2015 Program EIR, the Pacific Ocean is over 100 miles from the Planning Area, which eliminates any potential impact from tsunamis. Additionally, the closest large body of water, the Salton Sea, is located over 10 miles away from the Planning Area, which is outside the area that could be affected by seiches. Minor seiches may occur within the Planning Area in smaller ponds or lakes; however, the water level rise is unlikely to exceed 1.6 feet high. Mudflows may occur in the eastern portion of the Planning Area and the areas below the Mecca Hills as there is potential for landslides or soil shifts in these areas. Little development is set to occur in the eastern portion of the Planning Area as this land is primarily reserved for open space and very low development; however, Subareas 13 and 14 are allocated for development under the CGPU which could expose structures and people to inundation by mudflow. However, the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies that address mudflow and landslides and require development to analyze soil and mudflow potential prior to permitting and developing on a site and make any engineered structural changes to reduce impacts from mudflow (Policies 2.1 through 2.8, 3.7, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.17). Therefore, with existing regulation compliance, implementation of CGPU policies, and development land use standards, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. As discussed above, the proposed project area is not at risk of inundation by tsunami or seiche but portions of the Northern and Southern Project Areas may be susceptible to mudflows. However, new development would be required to analyze soil and mudflow potential prior to permitting and developing a site and make any engineered structural changes to reduce impacts from mudflow as required by existing policies in the CGPU. Therefore, with existing regulation compliance and implementation of CGPU policies, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new 283
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -44 or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Water Quality and Hydrology Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that because water is interconnected in the Coachella Valley, changes made in the Planning Area can have an effect on waterways, water quality, and hydrology in areas outside of the planning boundaries. Cumulative impacts of these changes could include poor water quality for those downstream of waterways within the Planning Area, erosion sending sediment downstream, indirect flooding from redirection of flood flow, and failure to build levees to protect populations from flood flows creating irreversible environmental impacts. However, the existing regulatory framework including NPDES permits, the Clean Water Act, local regulations, and policies of the CGPU would reduce potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, because of the extensive existing regulations and policies that regulate development and reduce impacts to water quality, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. Future development would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations that address water quality including the Clean Water Act Section 401, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the NPDES Program, and policies within the CGPU. Therefore, due to existing regulatory requirements and CGPU policies, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with water quality. No new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan, or natural community conservation plan?

3.9.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (Impact 4.8-1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that development under the CGPU would continue to occur in the western portion of the Planning Area, where density and development are most prominent, and 284
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-45 extend eastward into current agricultural and open space areas. Some areas of the Planning Area will continue to be reserved for agriculture and open space with little planned development.

Although the CPGU would result in significant growth, development would generally occur near the existing built environment as an extension of the established City and would enhance the existing developed community both socially and physically without dividing communities. The Land Use Element, the Mobility Element, and the Community Health and Wellness Element of the CGPU aim to maintain and strengthen the established and new communities of the Planning Area with connectivity, social programs, and community character enhancements (Policies 3.6, 5.17, 5.21, 6.6,

8.1, and 8.4 of the Land Use Element; Policies 9.1 through 9.5 of the Mobility Element; and Policies

4.1 through 4.8, 5.3, 5.6, and 8.23 through 8.28 of the Community Health and Wellness Element).

The 2015 Program EIR determined that the CPGU does not propose anything that would divide existing established communities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The project does not propose any roads or other physical features that would divide established communities. The proposed project would result in a continuation of existing land uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project 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?
2015 Program EIR
The CGPU is a policy document and outlines a number of development strategies, land use plans, and regulations to guide the growth of City of Coachella through 2035. The land use designations of the CGPU describe the intent of the designation, allowed land uses, development intensity, network and connectivity, street design, parks and open space, and urban form guidelines, to ensure development consistent with the vision of the CGPU, with enough variation to manage economic and changes in the community’s development direction. A number of plans and policies regulate all or portions of the Planning Area, and aim to maintain or enhance quality of life, or protect and preserve existing environments. Some notable plans include the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), the Jacqueline Cochran Airport Master Plan, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Air Quality Management Plan, Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375.

Analysis under the 2015 Program EIR concluded that the CGPU would not create any inconsistencies or conflicts with these regional plans or policies. The Zoning Code would require changes to development standards to better implement the General Plan, and rezoning may be required to ensure the zoning uses and General Plan land uses are in alignment. State law provides one year for jurisdictions to update their Zoning Codes subsequent to adoption of an updated General Plan. The CGPU includes multiple policies that require development to comply with applicable regulations, and prevents conflicts with federal, State, or local plans (Policies 1.7, 2.14, 6.2, 10.1, 10.4 through

10.7, 14.3, and 14.4 of the Land Use Element; Policies 8.1 through 8.3 of the Mobility Element; 285
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -46 Policies 2.12, 2.13, and 8.6 of the Community Health and Wellness Element; Policies 1.5, 1.8, 11.20,

11.21, 12.1, and 13.22 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element; Policies 1.6, 3.3, 3.4,

3.7, 6.9, 6.14, 6.15, 8.1, and 8.2 of the Safety Element; Policies 2.5, 3.9, 7.10, and 7.11 of the Infrastructure and Public Services Element; and Policies 1.4 and 1.5 of the Noise Element). The 2015 Program EIR concluded that there are no conflicts with existing plans, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project includes a new land use designation in the Western Project Area: Estate Rancho. The Estate Rancho land use designation is a new land use designation that would be created to match the existing County zoning because there is not a direct match for this density. Recent State legislation mandates that if there is a conflict in residential density between the General Plan and zoning, the higher density shall prevail (not necessarily the General Plan). The existing County zoning for the proposed Estate Rancho designation allows up to 2.2 du/ac (1 unit per 20,000 square feet), while the existing County General Plan designation allows 0.5 du/ac. The Estate Rancho designation would allow a density of 1.2 to 2 du/ac, which is a lesser density than existing County zoning. All other proposed land use designations are consistent with existing zoning and RCGP land use designations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR. No new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, or natural community conservation plan? (Impact 4.8-3)
2015 Program EIR
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.4.e. With compliance with the CVMSHCP requirements and implementation of CGPU policies, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.4.e. No portion of the proposed project site is located within CVMSHCP Conservation Land, and the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 Program EIR and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that although the CGPU land use designations would re-shape the Planning Area and bring in new people, businesses, and jobs to the City of Coachella, no conflicts with any regional plans or programs would occur. Additionally, the growth projections of the CGPU are largely in-line with the growth projections used for the various regional 286
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-47 plans that influence development in the project area. Thus, because the CGPU would not create any conflicts and the growth projections are in-line with estimates used for regional planning, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in a continuation of existing land uses and growth projections would be consistent with the CGPU and other regional plans that influence development in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with land use. No new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.10 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit. For roadway facilities in the City of
Coachella, this impact is evaluated in terms of LOS D
thresholds for roadways and intersections?
b. Conflict with the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) Congestion Management
Program (CMP), including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or
other standards established by the RCTC for
designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment) or impede emergency vehicle access?
e. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
287
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -48

3.10.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. For roadway facilities in the City of Coachella, this impact is evaluated in terms of LOS D thresholds for roadways and intersections? (Impact 4.9-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the increases in Citywide population and housing that would occur at build out of the CGPU would result in additional vehicle trips that would use City roadways and intersections that may result in additional congestion. An intersection analysis was completed which determined that various intersections and roadway segments would operate at a deficient level of service (LOS), requiring the implementation of the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measures 1) Within one year of adoption of the CGPU, the City shall update its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to establish a plan and funding mechanism that provides for the implementation of all of the roadway improvements identified in the Mobility Element. The DIF shall also include the following physical improvements and provide for their implementation prior to build out of the General Plan. The following physical improvements at each intersection are necessary to provide LOS D operations for either the AM or PM Peak Hours by increasing capacity and therefore reducing traffic congestion.
• Van Buren Street/Avenue 48
o Signalized Intersections
• SR-86S SB Ramps/Dillon Road
o NB Approach– Add 2nd right turn lane
o EB Approach– Change thru-right to a third thru lane with separated right turn lane
• SR-86S NB Ramps/Dillon Road
o NB Approach – Change to left and right turn lanes
o EB Approach – Add 3rd left turn lane
• Dillon Road/I-10 EB Ramps
o Signalized Intersection
• Dillon Road I-10 WB Ramps
o Signalize Intersection
288
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-49 o EB Approach- Change right turn to a free right (no conflict) • Harrison Street/Avenue 50
o SB Approach – Change thru from 3 to 4 lanes
o NB Approach – Change left from 1 to 2 lanes
o EB Approach – Change left from 2 to 3 lanes
o WB Approach – Change right from 1 to 2 lanes
• Harrison Street/Avenue 52
o NB Approach – Change 1 left to triple lefts
o SB Approach – Change 1 left to triple lefts and 2 thrus to 3 thrus o EB Approach – Change from 2 lefts to 3 lefts and 1 right to 2 rights
o WB Approach – Change from 1 right to 2 rights
• Harrison Street/Airport Boulevard
o SB Approach- Add second SB thru lane
2) Widen Avenue 50, east of SR-111, from 4 lanes to 6 lanes, which will improve the roadway segment LOS from E to LOS C or better.

Additionally, the Land Use Element and the Mobility Element of the CGPU includes policies oriented towards reducing vehicle usage through increases in density, provision of mixed use, improving the design of development, and the provision of alternative mode facilities (Policies 2.9, 2.10, 3.2, 3.3,

5.1, 5.15, 6.6, and 9.1 through 9.3 of the Land Use Element and Policies 3.1 through 3.6, 4.1 through

4.5, 5.1 through 5.5, 5.7, 8.1, and 8.3 of the Mobility Element).

With the implementation of the physical improvements associated with the proposed mitigation measures, the 2015 Program EIR determined that several segments of SR-86 South would continue to operate at a deficient LOS and that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not result in any changes to the circulation system. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law and started a process that changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include elimination of automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant 289
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -50 impacts under CEQA. According to SB 743, these changes are intended to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with Statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”
In December 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) completed an update to the State CEQA Guidelines to implement the requirements of SB 743. The CEQA Guidelines state that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) must be the metric used to determine significant transportation impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require all lead agencies in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance in CEQA documents published after July 1, 2020. The proposed project does not include physical development and would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses; therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts related to VMT. Any future development projects located within the project area would require project-specific environmental review and CEQA evaluation to evaluate potential impacts related to VMT. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project conflict with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Congestion Management Program (CMP), including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the RCTC for designated roads or highways? (Impact 4.9-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the incremental housing and employment growth associated with the CGPU would create additional vehicular trips along regional roadways such as I-10 and SR86 South, which are facilities within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would result in the operation of these roadways at a deficient LOS. The Mobility Element of the General Plan includes policies that address regional travel by encouraging the use of nonautomotive transportation modes to satisfy regional travel demand that could reduce traffic volumes on SR-86 South and I-10 (Policies 8.1 through 8.4). However, these policies would not fully mitigate these regional impacts as development outside of the City would contribute to increased traffic volumes on these facilities. Therefore, this traffic impact would be significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation measure exits that would fully mitigate impacts to regional roadways.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not result in any changes to the circulation system. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 290
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-51 c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Impact 4.9-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not have any direct or indirect impact upon any existing air facilities. The CGPU fully incorporates the Airport Land Use Plan and would not result in any inconsistencies with this plan. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and proposes no changes that would result in a change to air traffic patterns. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or impede emergency vehicle access? (Impact 4.9-4)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would not impede access by emergency vehicles because the previously identified mitigation measures for intersections would limit congestion during peak hours, allowing emergency vehicles to access locations throughout the City without being impeded by congestion. Additionally, the roadway network would be expanded to serve all areas of the City, ensuring that emergency vehicles can access new locations within the City as development occurs. The Mobility Element of the General Plan also includes a number of policies related to the design of transportation facilities which limit hazardous conditions (Policies 1.5, 2.1,

2.2, and 3.1). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses or impede emergency vehicle access.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not result in any changes to the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 291
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -52 e. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Impact 4.9-5)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would substantially expand the non-automotive facilities within the City. The CGPU roadway network would provide nearly 200 miles of roadways with in-street bicycle lanes and over 50 miles of off-street facilities. The proposed cross-sections for the CGPU also provide for sidewalks along many of the roadways within the City to facilitate pedestrian travel within the City. These Citywide facilities complement the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Non-Motorized Plan, which identifies regional connections along alignments such as the Parkway into the City of Coachella. Additionally, the Mobility Element of the CGPU includes policies which encourage the development of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2). Given the alternative transportation mode improvements identified and the supporting policy language, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU strongly supports travel by walking, bicycling, and transit, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not result in any changes to the circulation system or public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Circulation Impacts
2015 Program EIR. As previously discussed, under CGPU implementation, some regional roadways are anticipated to operate at a deficient level. Some of the traffic found on these roadways would come from the City of Coachella while the remaining traffic would come from areas outside of Coachella. For I-10, much of this traffic is through traffic which neither begins nor ends a trip in the City of Coachella. There is also through traffic along SR-86 South, traveling to and from areas south of Coachella. This impact is partially mitigated through policies in the Mobility Element of the General Plan (Policies 8.1 through 8.4) which reduce vehicular travel outside of the City by encouraging transit, carpooling, and bicycling. Further mitigation is provided by the regional funding programs within which all development in the City of Coachella participates, such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The TUMF collects funds from developments throughout the Coachella Valley and allocates these funds to regional projects such as interchanges and major roadways. However, there are no programmed improvements along the regional facilities that are directly impacted by the General Plan including I-10 and SR-86 South. The 2015 Program EIR determined that it is unlikely that existing policies and funding programs would fully mitigate all regional traffic impacts and that no additional mitigation measures would be feasible. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that cumulative traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 292
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-53 Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and proposes no changes that would result in a change to traffic patterns. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the circulation system or public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.11 NOISE
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d. Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e. Expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels from a public or
private airport within two miles of the project area?

3.11.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Impact 4.10-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that locations throughout Coachella would experience increased noise levels resulting from growth consistent with the CGPU. The areas that would be exposed to the greatest noise increases are areas in proximity to high-volume roadways because automobile traffic is the most significant source of noise in Coachella. Computer noise modeling determined that implementation of the CGPU could expose existing or future noise-sensitive receptors to noise levels above the City’s 65 A-weighted decibel community noise equivalent level (dBA CNEL) exterior noise standard for residential uses. The most effective methods local governments have to mitigate transportation noise is through land use planning that reduces vehicle trips and physical 293
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -54 interventions that reduce the impact of the noise on the community (e.g., building and site design that shields sensitive receivers from noise sources). The Noise Element of the CGPU includes goals and policies that would help promote alternative noise-reduction strategies, while also ensuring that future development would not expose noise-sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City’s standards (Policies 1.2 and 3.2). Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the policies contained in the CGPU.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any significant noisegenerating activities or development. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Future development would be subject to existing CGPU goals and policies that would ensure development would not expose noise-sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City’s standards. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Impact 4.10-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that groundborne vibration in the City of Coachella is primarily generated by temporary construction activities and permanent traffic on roadways and railways.

The 2015 Program EIR determined that if sensitive receptors are located close enough to potential construction sites, these sensitive receptors could experience vibration levels exceeding the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) vibration impact threshold of 72 vibration velocity decibels (VdB).

However, Section 7.04.070 of the Coachella Municipal Code (CMC) exempts noise sources from specific activities provided that such activities take place during daytime hours. The City reviews the potential for construction vibration impacts before it issues building permits and would require measures to ensure that physical damage to neighboring buildings would not occur before issuing a building permit.

Although the proposed CGPU may increase automotive traffic levels in Coachella as the community grows in population and accommodates new business activity, the same policies within the CGPU that would reduce impacts from automobile traffic-related noise would also reduce impacts from automobile traffic-related vibration. Vibration from the railroad tracks is and would continue to be intermittent, and traffic on the freight rail line would not significantly increase due to implementation of the CGPU to the extent that it would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would result in less than significant groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels with existing CMC requirement compliance and implementation of policies included in the CGPU.
294
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-55 Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any significant groundborne vibration or noise-generating activities or development. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing CMC requirements related to noise and vibration in addition to existing CGPU policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Impact 4.10-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that Coachella would experience increased noise along some roadway segments due to increased traffic levels resulting from growth anticipated under the CGPU.

In general, it is easier to ensure proper noise attenuation for new uses, which can be required to incorporate noise-attenuating features into their design before they are built, than it is to ensure proper noise attenuation for existing uses, which cannot easily be redesigned or retrofitted to provide greater noise attenuation, and for which it is not always feasible to construct barriers between the sensitive receptor and the noise source. The Noise Element of the CGPU includes various policies that would help mitigate the impact of traffic noise on sensitive receptors (Policies

1.2 and 3.2). Other transportation noise sources such as noise from the railroad and from Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport are not expected to significantly increase as a result of the proposed CGPU. Stationary noise sources will continue to be regulated by the provisions of the CMC.

Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would result in less than significant impacts to ambient noise levels due to existing regulatory requirements in the CMC and policies included in the CGPU.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any significant noisegenerating activities or development. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing CMC requirements related to noise in addition to existing CGPU policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
295
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -56 d. Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Impact 4.10-4) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the primary source of temporary or periodic noise in Coachella would be construction activity and maintenance work, involving both on-site construction activity and the transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites. Section

7.04.030 of the CMC forbids any person to “make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the city limits, any disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise or vibration which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area or that is plainly audible at a distance greater than fifty (50) feet from the source’s point for any purpose”, but Section 7.04.070 of the CMC specifically exempts from this requirement noise sources associated with construction, erection, demolition, alteration, repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty, provided that such activities take place during daytime hours, as discussed above. Additionally, Policy 2.2 of the Noise Element of the CGPU requires the City to “minimize stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private development/residences, landscaping activities, night clubs and bars and special events.” Therefore, with CMC compliance and implementation of the CGPU policies, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts to ambient noise levels would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any significant noisegenerating activities or development. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing CMC requirements related to noise in addition to existing CGPU policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
e. Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a public or private airport within two miles of the project area? (Impact 4.10-5) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that parts of the project area are located within the airport land use plan area of Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, which is the only public or private airport within 2 miles of the City of Coachella. The next closest airport is located in Palm Springs, approximately 18 miles northwest of Coachella. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the distribution of land uses under the CGPU would not expose residents to excessive noise levels.

Additionally, Policy 1.5 of the Noise Element of the CGPU requires the City to comply with all applicable policies of the Riverside County General Plan Noise Element relating to airport noise, including those policies requiring compliance with the airport land use noise compatibility plan for 296
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-57 this airport. Therefore the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
No portion of the proposed project area is located within 2 miles of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Noise Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that cumulative development in Coachella would add population, business, and traffic to the community. This cumulative development would also increase noise levels in the community, especially in the vicinity of its busiest roadways.

However, the CGPU’s potential to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is less than significant with implementation of the policies of the proposed CGPU and enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. The 2015 Program EIR concluded that cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any significant noise-generating activities or development. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing regulations and requirements related to noise in addition to existing CGPU policies. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.12 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Generate construction-related emissions that may
result in temporary adverse impacts to local air
quality?
c. Result in long-term emissions associated with future development facilitated by the CGPU that exceed
levels in regional forecasts?
297
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -58 Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?

3.12.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Impact 4.11-1)
2015 Program EIR
Substantial population growth, which would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants, is expected in Coachella through 2035 under the CGPU; however, planned growth is unlikely to conflict with applicable air quality plans. The Land Use and Community Character Element of the CGPU includes various policies that would facilitate a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (Policies 2.9, 2.10,

3.2, 3.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11, 5.24, 6.5, 6.6, and 9.6). Additionally, the Mobility Element of the CGPU promotes reduced dependence on automobiles through various policies (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 through 3.4, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, and 8.1 through 8.3). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not imposed control measures on the Coachella Valley targeting the region’s primary air quality concern, ozone pollution; therefore, growth facilitated by the CGPU would not be expected to impede progress toward ozone attainment. In 2002, SCAQMD instituted five control measures targeting fugitive dust (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size [PM10]) emissions in the Coachella Valley. The control measures address fugitive dust emissions from construction/earthmovement activities, activities on disturbed vacant lands, unpaved roads and parking lots, paved roads, and agricultural activities. The Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU includes several policies that are consistent with these control measures (Policies 11.8, 11.1, and

5.8). The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, published in April 2005, also contains recommendations for the siting of sensitive land uses near major sources of air pollutants, and the Land Use and Community Character Element and the Safety Element of the CGPU includes policies consistent with the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook’s recommendation on siting near freeways (Policy 8.12 of the Land Use and Community Character Element; Policies 5.4 and 5.9 of the Safety Element; and Policies 11.3 and 11.11 of the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element). As the CGPU would generally be consistent with SCAG’s growth forecast for 2035 and would not conflict with applicable control measures and recommended standards for siting of sensitive receptors, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would have a less than significant impact on applicable air quality plans.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or 298
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-59 development that would result in significant air pollutant emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU related to reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing dependence on automobiles, control measures to address fugitive dust emissions, and appropriate siting for sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project generate construction-related emissions that may result in temporary adverse impacts to local air quality? (Impact 4.11-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that construction activities associated with the CGPU would cause temporary emissions of various air pollutants. Sources of air pollution during construction include heavy-duty construction equipment, material delivery trucks, soil disturbance activities, construction worker vehicles, and architectural coatings, among other activities. Ozone precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, while PM10 would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building construction. The Coachella Valley is currently in nonattainment for both the federal and State standards for ozone and PM10. However, Coachella Valley is in attainment for federal and State standards for NOx, CO, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). Although no specific attainment goal has been established, the potential release of asbestos or other toxic air contaminants could also occur within the City, especially during building demolition. Depending upon the development type, size, and timeframe, maximum daily construction emissions associated with individual projects could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, future construction activity within the City would be subject to policies within the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU that requires limiting emissions and dust during construction and appropriate siting for sensitive receptors (Policies 11.3 and 11.8). These policies would reduce air quality impacts related to construction during the CGPU build out period. In addition, SCAQMD has established Rules 402 and 403, which strive to eliminate emissions of airborne pollutants and require project-specific control measures designed to reduce the level of fugitive dust entrainment, respectively. Furthermore, each individual project facilitated by the CGPU would be required to implement additional mitigation if site-specific analysis identifies the potential to exceed the applicable thresholds for construction-related emissions. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that adherence to applicable CGPU policies and SCAQMD rules would reduce potential construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant air pollutant emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as 299
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -60 the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. During construction of any future development within the project area, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust and/or other solvents and chemicals associated with operation of construction equipment.

However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU related to limiting emissions and dust during construction and appropriate siting for sensitive receptors in addition to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. c. Would the project result in long-term emissions associated with future development facilitated by the CGPU that exceed levels in regional forecasts? (Impact 4.11-3) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that future development in accordance with the CGPU would generate long-term emissions from mobile sources (vehicle trips) and stationary sources (electricity and natural gas). Emissions associated with the operation of individual projects, depending on project type and size, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by the SCAQMD.

However, such projects would be required to undergo independent project-level CEQA review and, where necessary and feasible, they would include mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant project-level impacts. Additionally, implementation of measures in the CGPU to reduce dependence on automotive transportation would lead to reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled, reducing the City’s contribution to regional emissions. Furthermore, goals, policies, and design standards in the CGPU are consistent with applicable SCAQMD control measures and ARB recommendations. Calculations using SCAQMD’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) estimated that future operational emissions in Coachella would comprise a small portion of total emissions across the SCAQMD region. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that long-term emissions would be generally consistent with regional forecasts, and impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant air pollutant or odor emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU related to reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing dependence on automobiles, and control measures to address fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
300
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-61 d. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Impact 4.11-4)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that CO is not expected to be a major air quality concern in the Coachella Valley over the planning horizon, but elevated CO levels can occur at or near intersections that experience severe traffic congestion. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if the additional CO emissions resulting from the project create a “hot spot” where the California 1-hour standards of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm is exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the CGPU, various intersections would experience congestion at a deficient LOS following implementation of the CGPU. However, a number of mitigation measures are proposed to provide additional capacity at these intersections and to reduce the impacts to LOS.

Additional mitigation is provided by General Plan policy language, which is oriented towards reducing vehicle usage through increases in density, provision of mixed use, improving development design, and provision of alternative mode facilities. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that additional traffic would not degrade conditions at intersections to the extent that mobilesource emissions exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour ambient air quality standards for CO, and impacts would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation measures included in Section 3.9, Circulation, and implementation of CGPU policies.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant CO emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU which is oriented towards reducing vehicle usage through increases in density, provision of mixed use, improving the design of development, and provision of alternative mode facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants from the construction and operation of projects, which would contribute to regional emissions within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. However, adherence to policies in the Land Use and Community Character Element, the Mobility Element, and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element of the CGPU, and compliance with existing SCAQMD rules, would reduce the generation of ozone precursors and particulates for which the Coachella Valley is in nonattainment. Furthermore, the City’s contribution to regional emissions is minimal; attainment of ozone standards in the Coachella Valley depends predominantly on the application of control measures in the South Coast Air Basin. Assuming continued compliance with 301
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -62 State and federal air quality regulations in the Coachella Valley and implementation of control measures targeting ozone in the South Coast Air Basin, the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan finds that the Coachella Valley will reach attainment of federal air quality standards. Since emissions of air pollutants from the City would not be cumulatively considerable in the SCAQMD region, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that the CGPU would not have a significant cumulative impact, and no mitigation is required.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU and existing SCAQMD rules aimed at reducing emissions of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.13 GREENHOUSE GASES
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?

3.13.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Impact 4.12-1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU would generate new greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, directly and indirectly. However, policies contained in the CGPU as well as emission reduction strategies implemented at the State and federal levels aimed at limiting vehicle use and energy consumption would also reduce GHG emissions such that annual GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD service population thresholds of 6.6 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) for 2020. Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2E), and is the amount of a GHG emitted 302
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-63 multiplied by its global warming potential. GHG emissions would continue to exceed the City’s 2035 service population reduction target of 4.2 MT CO2E (or 49 percent) for 2035. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is required:

Mitigation Measure Between 2020 and 2035, require implementation of the Additional CAP measures included in Table 18 of the City of Coachella Climate Action Plan, or other equally effective measures, which would achieve an annual per service population emission figure of 4.2 MT CO2E or less by 2035.

With implementation of this mitigation measure, the City would achieve an annual per service population emission figure of 4.2 MT CO2E or less, which would be meet with the City’s reduction target for 2035. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant GHG emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at limiting vehicle use and energy consumption to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Impact 4.12-2) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that the CGPU would be consistent with the policies and goals of the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including the GHG emission reduction goals contained in the adopted RTP/SCS. The CGPU was developed to reduce GHG emissions pursuant to Assembly Bill 32 GHG reduction goals and would implement numerous policies that reduce GHG emissions from transportation, energy, water, and solid waste emission sources. Implementation of these policies supports the ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008) to achieve emission reductions from land use development emission sources and create more GHG-efficient development without impeding population and economic growth.

CGPU policies would also reduce GHG emissions in all sectors described in ARB’s Scoping Plan and would not preclude or obstruct its implementation. Overall, the policies, programs, measures, and actions of the CGPU are consistent with the ARB Scoping Plan, which is the statewide plan to achieve the goals of Assembly Bill 32. Therefore, the 2015 Program EIR determined that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
303
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -64 Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant GHG emissions. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at reducing GHG emissions.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Greenhouse Gases Impacts
2015 Program EIR. GHG emissions have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Therefore, the topic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact. Though significance thresholds can be developed by air districts, State regulatory agencies, or federal regulatory agencies, these thresholds and their related goals are ultimately designed to effect change at a global level. While the evaluation presented above is focused on the proposed project, and is specific to the project, it is also considered cumulative because it is only as a contribution to a cumulative effect that the projectspecific emissions have environmental consequences. Therefore, the analysis provided above includes the analysis of both the project and cumulative impacts.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing
necessitating the construction or replacement
housing elsewhere; and/or displace substantial
numbers of people necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
304
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-65

3.14.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? (Impact 4.13-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that significant population growth may occur in the City with implementation of the CGPU. However, it is the goal of the CGPU that any such population growth would be measured and accommodated within the CGPU. The City anticipates continued growth, including the transformation from a small town into a medium-sized, full service city. The CGPU would accommodate this anticipated growth through updated land use designations that encourage measured residential and non-residential development and allow for increased circulation as population increases occur. Impacts from implementation of the CGPU would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant population growth. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at encouraging measured population growth. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction or replacement housing elsewhere; and/or displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Impact 4.13-2) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that a significant impact could occur if a project would displace existing housing in the City. However, implementation of the CGPU does not propose any displacement of existing housing. Impacts of the CGPU related to displacement of housing would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant housing displacement. Future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at encouraging measured population growth and 305
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -66 minimizing displacement of housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that growth in the City and region would occur with or without implementation of the CGPU. The CGPU accounts for future population growth and establishes goals and policies to reduce potential growth-related impacts. Additionally, the goals and policies are designed to preserve and improve existing and future physical development by providing a balance of residential and non-residential development, ensuring that adjacent land uses are compatible with one another, and effectively developing vacant parcels. All future projects under the CGPU would be required to mitigate land use impacts on a project-byproject basis. Therefore, the incremental impact of the CGPU, when considered in combination with development within the subregion, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing. Further, projects within the SCAG region that are regionally significant, as determined by SCAG, would be reviewed for conformity with regional goals for population, housing, employment, mobility, and air quality, further reducing potential cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at encouraging measured population growth. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Would the Project:

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-67 Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
d. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

3.15.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities, need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service or to meet performance objectives for Natural Gas, Electricity, or Telecommunication? (Impact 4.14-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that development consistent with the CGPU could result in potential impacts to natural gas, electricity, and telecommunication infrastructure in the City.

Policies 6.1 through 6.10, identified in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element, outline measures to reduce impacts from improvements to natural gas, electricity, and telecommunication infrastructure in the City. With implementation of Policies 6.1 through 6.10, impacts from improvements to natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to natural gas, electricity, or telecommunications services. Future development consistent with the proposed project would be subject to plan checks and project-specific CEQA reviews that would evaluate the individual project’s infrastructure needs and impacts. With implementation of future CEQA evaluations and the existing policies in the CGPU, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. b. Would the project result in wasteful energy consumption? (Impact 4.14-2) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU could increase the need for energy consumption in the City. However, any proposed project in the City is subject to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which requires projects to consider energy consumption and evaluate ways to conserve energy. The CGPU, which includes policies and goals in the Land Use and Community 307
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -68 Character Element and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element focused on energy consumption reduction (Land Use and Community Character Element Policy 5.10; and Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 1.6, 1.7, 2.1 through 2.14, 11.2, and 11.14) also includes implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which provides several strategies for reducing energy consumption Citywide and at the project level. Through consistency with applicable State goals and policies, and implementation of the City’s CAP, impacts from the CGPU would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to energy consumption. Future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU and CAP aimed at encouraging energy efficiency.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. c. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Impact 4.14-3)
2015 Program EIR
Prior analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that development consistent with the CGPU would increase the Planning Area’s population from approximately 40,000 currently, to 135,000 by 2035. According to Senate Bill 1016 measurements, average population disposal weight is

4.5 pounds per resident per day. Solid waste generated under the CGPU could reach 131,800 tons per year by 2035, equating to roughly 360 tons per day. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is currently permitted to receive 3,000 tons of waste per day. The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 34,292,000 cubic yards. The Badlands Landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tons of waste per day. The Coachella Valley Transfer Station, which receives and transfers waste from the City of Coachella and the City of Indio, currently receives an average of 328 tons of waste per day and has a capacity of 1,100 tons of waste per day. Based on these metrics, there is capacity for the additional waste generated under the CGPU. Policies identified in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element (Policies 5.1 through 5.16), outline measures to reduce impacts to landfill services and capacity in the City. With implementation of policies identified in the CGPU, impacts to landfill services and capacity would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to landfill services or capacity in the City.

Waste collected from the Project Areas is currently disposed of at regional landfills and has been accounted for in growth projections. Future development in the Project Area would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining landfill services. Therefore, impacts would be less 308
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-69 than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
d. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Impact 4.14-4)
2015 Program EIR
Prior analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that implementation of the CGPU could result in the generation of additional solid waste due to population growth in the City. Policies 5.2 through 5.16, identified in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element, outline measures to reduce impacts related to solid waste generation in the City. With implementation of Policies 5.2 through 5.16, and compliance with federal, State, and local statutes, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would conflict with federal, State, or local statutes related to solid waste generation in the City. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU and all federal, State, and local statutes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Public Utilities Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that with implementation of the CGPU, the City’s utility infrastructure would need to accommodate a population three-times the existing population. This growth could create a substantial need for infrastructure that could affect level of service in the region. Increased population in the Planning Area could cause a transfer of services to meet growing demand, and leave others within the region with unreliable services. To reduce potential impacts, the policies of the CGPU would proactively maintain and monitor level of service within the Planning Area and encourage waste diversion. With the implementation of policies in the CGPU and compliance with federal, State, and local policies and jurisdictions, the, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that cumulative impacts to public utilities would be less than significant.

With implementation of future CEQA evaluations and the existing policies in the CGPU, no new or 309
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -70 substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

3.16 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered fire protection facilities, need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for fire protection services?
b. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for law protection?
c. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives for any schools?
d. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives for any parks?
e. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for medical facilities,
healthcare facilities, or hospitals?
310
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-71

3.16.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services? (Impact 4.15-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR notes that two fire stations serve the region (Battalion 6 Coachella Fire Station #79 and the Indio Fire Department); however, based on response times and the number of firefighters per 1,000 residents, the City is underserving its population. Policies identified in the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element, the Infrastructure and Public Services Element, and the Noise Element (Sustainable and Natural Environment Policies 2.2, 2.3, 2.11, 2.14, and 3.1; Infrastructure and Public Services Element Policies 1.9, 7.8, and 7.10 through 7.12; and Noise Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2), outline measures to reduce impacts to improve level of service and response times in the City. With implementation of policies and mitigation measures identified, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to fire protection levels of service and response times. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at improving fire protection level of service and response times or contributing to new fire stations, that would require a separate CEQA evaluation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for law protection? (Impact 4.15-2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR notes that the City is currently served by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The anticipated increase in population under the CGPU could result in increased call volumes and would increase the need for additional facilities and staff. Policies identified in the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element (Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 2.2, 2.3, 2.11, 2.14, and 3.1; and Infrastructure and Public Services Element Policies 1.9, 1.10, 7.1 through 7.6, and 7.8), outline 311
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -72 measures to reduce impacts to improve level of service and response times in the City. With implementation of CGPU policies identified, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to government facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining or improving existing government services or contributing to new government facilities, which would require a separate CEQA evaluation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
c. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for any schools? (Impact 4.15-3)
2015 Program EIR
Prior analysis under the 2015 Program EIR determined that the Planning Area would need additional schools serving all ages based on the population projections under the CGPU. Policies identified in the Land Use and Community Character Element, the Community Health and Wellness Element, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element (Land Use and Community Character Element Policies 8.3 and 10.1; Community Health and Wellness Element Policies 5.4, 6.6, 6.14, and 8.1 through 8.11; Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 2.2, 2.3, 2.11, 2.14, and 3.1; and Infrastructure and Public Services Element Policies

1.8 through 1.10), outline measures to reduce impacts related to the need for additional schools, in the City. With implementation of policies identified, impacts to government facilities, including schools, would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to the need for additional government facilities, including schools. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining existing government services, including schools or contributing to new school facilities, which would require a separate CEQA evaluation. Therefore, 312
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-73 impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. d. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for any parks? (Impact 4.15-4)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR indicated that the City Planning Area has 60.2 acres of park, and 109 acres of parkland and open space, offering a number of recreation opportunities including; baseball fields, soccer fields, swimming pools, playgrounds, picnic areas, and basketball courts. Policies identified in the Land Use and Community Character Element, the Community Health and Wellness Element, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element, the Safety Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element (Land Use and Community Character Element Policies 2.13, 2.17, 2.18, 3.6,

4.7, 5.16, 8.2, 8.4, and 9.5; Community Health and Wellness Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5; Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 2.8, 2.9, 3.7, 3.8, and 13.1 through 13.25; Safety Element Policy 3.6; and Infrastructure and Public Services Element Policies 1.8 and 2.17), outline measures to reduce impacts to parks in the City. With implementation of policies identified in the CGPU, impacts to parks would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to parks. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining existing park facilities or contributing to new park facilities, which would require a separate CEQA evaluation.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for medical facilities, healthcare facilities, or hospitals? (Impact 4.15-5) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR notes that the CGPU Planning Area is served by seven medical facilities. The closest hospital is John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Indio. The CGPU proposes street development connectivity throughout the Planning Area that would help improve response times for hospital and 313
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -74 emergency response vehicles. This would also reduce noise impacts along the route, as the connectivity would allow response vehicles to travel near fewer sensitive receptors. Policies identified in the Land Use and Community Character Element, the Community Health and Wellness Element, the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element, and the Mobility Element (Land Use and Community Character Element Policies 8.1, 8.2, and 14.1; Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 2.14, 3.1, 3.7, and 3.8; Community Health and Wellness Element Policies 9.4 and 9.9 through 9.11; and Mobility Element Policy 8.3), outline measures to reduce impacts to medical facilities in the City. With implementation of policies identified in the CGPU, impacts to medical and healthcare facilities and hospitals would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to medical facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining existing medical facilities or contributing to new medical facilities, which would require a separate CEQA evaluation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Public Services Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the demand for all public services within the Planning Area is expected to increase as population increases and the need to maintain adequate quality of service, access, and response times for emergency vehicles increases. However, the cumulative policies of the CGPU propose multiple strategies to reduce potential impacts to public facilities and ensure adequate level of service ratios are maintained. Although implementation of the CGPU may require the construction of additional public service facilities, this development would account for a small proportion of the overall development under the CGPU.

Therefore, due to CGPU policies and based on the scale of development of the CGPU, the 2015 Program EIR concluded that cumulative impacts from public services would be less than significant.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining adequate levels of service ratios. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 314
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-75

3.17 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER
Would the Project:

Impact
Examined in
2015 Program
EIR
Impact not Examined in 2015 Program EIR
No Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water
treatment or collection facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
d. Require or result in the construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f. Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?

3.17.1 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Impact 4.16.1) 2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that water demands resulting from implementation of the CGPU have been accounted for in the Coachella Valley Water District’s (CVWD) local and regional water supply planning processes and determinations of sufficient water supplies for the City and its Sphere of Influence. Through compliance with applicable policies set forth in the CGPU and CVWD’s Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP 2010), impacts to water supplies in the City would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or 315
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -76 development that would result in significant changes to water supply services. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU and CVWMP aimed at maintaining sufficient water supply. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Impact 4.16.2)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR determined that water demands resulting from implementation of the CGPU have been accounted for in the CVWD‘s local and regional water supply planning processes and determinations of sufficient water supplies for the City and its Sphere of Influence. Through compliance with applicable policies set forth in the CGPU and CVWD’s CVWMP (2010), impacts to water treatment and collection facilities in the City would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to water treatment or collection facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining service of existing water treatment and collection facilities in the City or contributing to new water treatment and collection facilities, which would require a separate CEQA evaluation.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. c. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Impact 4.16.3)
2015 Program EIR
The City’s wastewater treatment facilities are managed by the Coachella Sanitary District and are under the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRBRWQCB). In order for wastewater treatment facilities to be in operation, they must comply with all requirements of the CRBRWQCB with annual reporting to monitor treatment practices. Wastewater treatment demands resulting from implementation of the CGPU must comply with requirements set forth in the CRBRWQCB. Through compliance with applicable policies set forth in the CGPU, including Policies

3.1 and 3.4 under the Infrastructure and Public Services Element and regulatory requirements of the 316
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-77 CRBRWQCB, impacts to wastewater treatment requirements in the City would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to wastewater treatment requirements. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining existing wastewater treatment requirements in the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
d. Would the project require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Impact 4.16.4-1)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR anticipated that there will be a 19.1 million gallons per day deficiency in wastewater treatment capacity in the three-city region of La Quinta, Coachella, and Indio, by 2035.

Policies identified in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 through

3.5, and 3.7 through 3.9), outline measures to reduce impacts from this potential deficiency in the City and region. With implementation of policies, increasing capacity, and improving efficiency to reduce wastewater generation, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to wastewater treatment facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining service from existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.
e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Impact 4.16.4-2) 317
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -78 2015 Program EIR
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.17.d. With implementation of policies, increasing capacity, and improving efficiency to reduce wastewater generation, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
Please refer to the analysis above in Section 3.17.d. Future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining service from existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. f. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Impact 4.16.5)
2015 Program EIR
The 2015 Program EIR notes the primary regional stormwater drainage facility within the Coachella Valley is the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (WWRSC/CVSC), a portion of the Whitewater River that has been channelized to handle flood flows of up to 80,000 cfs and drains water into the Salton Sea, south of the Planning Area. Policies identified in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element and the Sustainability and Natural Environment Element (Infrastructure and Public Services Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 4.1 through

4.9; and Sustainability and Natural Environment Element Policies 7.1 through 7.2), outline measures to reduce impacts from improvements to stormwater drainage facilities in the City. With implementation of policies identified in the CGPU, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.

Proposed Project
As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to stormwater drainage facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density.

Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining stormwater drainage facility services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially severe impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR.

Cumulative Water Supply and Wastewater Impacts
2015 Program EIR. The 2015 Program EIR determined that the total projected water supplies available to the City during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during build out of the Planning Areas are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed 318
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 3-79 project. In addition, CVWD concluded that the total projected water supplies available to the East (Lower) Whitewater River Subbasin area during normal, single-dry and multiple dry periods throughout the year 2045 are sufficient to meet the water needs of existing uses and projected growth throughout CVWD, specifically including the future water needs within the City and its Sphere of Influence. At the time of the 2015 Program EIR, the three-city area of Coachella, Indio, and La Quinta is projected to have a combined population of 300,000 and exceed regional wastewater treatment capacity by approximately 19.1 million gallons per day in approximately 20 years. The policies of the CGPU would require concurrent development of Citywide wastewater treatment facilities with new development to ensure there is adequate capacity for wastewater treatment. Given this policy, cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant. Similarly, the regional WWRSC/CVSC is a regional facility designed and constructed to handle regional stormwater flows. As development occurs within Coachella, it will be required to have adequate stormwater control facilities in place prior to issuance of permits. Additionally, the City will be required to coordinate facility capacities with CVWD. These efforts would ensure no cumulative impacts would occur as development would be prohibited should adequate capacity not be available. Thus, cumulative impacts related to stormwater facilities would be considered less than significant.

Proposed Project. As previously discussed, the proposed CGPU land use designations are generally consistent with the existing land uses and existing RCGP land use designations. The proposed project would result in the continuation of existing and historic land uses and would not directly result in any activities or development that would result in significant changes to water treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, or stormwater drainage facilities. Any growth that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with previous projections as the project does not propose any significant changes to land use or density. Additionally, future development would be subject to existing policies in the CGPU aimed at maintaining service from existing and planned water treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, no new or substantially severe cumulative impacts would occur that have not already been addressed by the 2015 Program EIR. 319
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
3 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -80 This page intentionally left blank
320
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 4-1

4.0 APPLICABLE 2015 PROGRAM EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures were adopted upon certification of the 2015 Program EIR and would be incorporated into the proposed project.

4.1 AESTHETICS
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, while aesthetic impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures were identified.

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, while agricultural resources impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures were identified.

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure Prior to adoption of the Final EIR and CGPU, update CGPU Chapter 7 with new policy. Policy will state: Require projects proposing to develop in subareas 5, 6, and 7 to conduct survey to determine if there is occurrence of sensitive species within the project area. If sensitive species are present, projects must implement mitigation measures necessary as prescribed by a qualified biologist and approved by any applicable resource agency in order to receive necessary City permits.

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure Prior to adoption of the Final EIR and CGPU, update CGPU to add policy in Chapter 7 that states: In areas where there is a high chance that human remains may be present, require proposed projects to conduct survey to establish occurrence of human remains, if any. If human remains are discovered on proposed project sites, the project must implement mitigation measures to prevent impacts to human remains in order to receive permit approval.

4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, geology and soils impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, hazardous materials impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary. 321
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
4 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2

4.7 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, water quality and hydrology impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, land use and planning impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.9 CIRCULATION
Within one year of adoption of the CGPU, the City shall update its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to establish a plan and funding mechanism that provides for the implementation of all of the roadway improvements identified in the Mobility Element.

4.10 NOISE
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, noise impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.11 AIR QUALITY
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, air quality impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.12 GREENHOUSE GASES
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, greenhouse gas impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, population and housing impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.14 PUBLIC UTILITIES
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, public utilities impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, public services impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary.

4.16 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER
According to the Final EIR for the CGPU, water supply and wastewater impacts were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were not necessary. 322
Item 4.

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) 5-1

5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 11.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Riverside County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. November 21. Website: https://osfm.fire. ca.gov/ media/uk1pvwva/ fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_riverside_ada.pdf (accessed June 8, 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search& reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM& reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST (accessed April 10, 2023).

City of Coachella. 2013. Coachella General Plan Update Water Supply Assessment. _____. 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR. October.
_____. 2015a. General Plan Update. April 22.
_____. 2015b. General Plan Update Final EIR. February.

Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). 2010. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan. 2010 Update. Website: https://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/2130/Draft-SubsequentProgram-Environmental-Impact-Report-Part-1-PDF?bidId=. July 2011 (accessed April 2023).

County of Riverside. 2003. Riverside County General Plan Final Program EIR. _____. 2005. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2005. State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. November 14.

Raimi + Associates. 2023a. City of Coachella General Plan Update 2035 General Plan Land Use Designations, Annotated.
_____. 2023b. Estate Rancho Designation Description.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States and Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Map. Geological Survey professional paper; 1183. Website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1183/pp1183.html (accessed April 2023). 323
Item 4.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE P ROJECT

CITY OF COACHELLA , C ALIFORNIA

A DDENDUM TO THE E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
J UNE 2023
5 P:\20231020 - Coachella EIR Addendum\PRODUCT\City comments 20230606\EIR Addendum-June 2023.docx (06/14/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
324
Item 4.

RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE COACHELLA PLANNING COMMISION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-03 TO AMEND THE CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN 2035 AND THE OFFICIAL GENERAL PLAN MAP

RELATED TO ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS FOR THREE AREAS EVALUATED AS PART OF THE
GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA IN THE CERTIFIED 2015

PROGRAM ENVRIONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BUT FOR WHICH
NO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION WAS IDENTIFIED.

APPLICANT: CITY-INITIATED
WHEREAS, the City of Coachella initiated General Plan Amendment No. 23-03 for a land use designation amendments, along with Environmental Assessment No. 23-03, (collectively the “Project Approvals”), to establish General Plan land use designations for three areas that were evaluated as part of the City of Coachella General Plan Planning Area in the certified 2015 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but for which no General Plan land use designation was identified. The three areas include: (1) the area generally bounded by Dillon Road to the west, Fargo Canyon to the north, parcel boundaries to the east, and East Side Dike to the southeast (Northern Project Area); (2) the area generally bounded by Jackson Street on the west, approximately 0.25 mile north of 51st Avenue on the north, Calhoun Street on the east, and 52nd Avenue on the south (Western Project Area); and (3) the area generally bounded by State Route 86 (SR-86) to the west, Avenue 60 to the north, Lincoln Street to the east, and 62nd Avenue to the south (Southern Project Area).

Resolution No. 2023-17

Page 2 ends

Coachella City CouncilJune 21, 2023

Coachella City Council
June 21, 2023