Agenda packet, regular meeting — Coachella City Council, March 25, 2026 (part 3 of 5)

Item 19.

Page 1 ends

Prepared For: Abode Communities
Prepared By: California Housing Partnership
Version: 9.03 Closing Projections
Revised: 3/16/2026
Filename:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sources of Funds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 1 Cash Flow (Residential)…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………11a Uses of Funds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 2 Cash Flow (Commercial) …………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………11b Developer Fee Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 3 Outstanding Debt & Reserves (Book)…………………………………………..………………………..……..…12a Unit Mix & Rental Income…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 4 Outstanding Debt & Reserves (Tax)…………………………………………..………………………..……..……12b Tax Credit Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 5 Net Cash Flow Fee Accruals…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………12c Base Year Income & Expense…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 6 Schedule of Existing Debt…………………………………………..………………………..……..………………12d Mortgage Calculation & Bond Ratios…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 7 Schedule of Deductions…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………13 Lease-up/Placed-in-Service Schedule…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 8 Analysis of Taxable Income…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………14 Net Syndication Proceeds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 9 Capital Account & Exit Tax Liability…………………………………………..………………………..……..……15 TCAC Calculations…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 10a Investment Summary…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………………16 TCAC Transfer Event Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 10b Net Quarterly Benefits…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………17

SOURCES OF FUNDS - PERMANENT
AMOUNT
TOTAL

INTEREST
COST
OID

INTEREST
RATE
AMORT
(Yr) COMMENTS
0 Key Bank Freddie Tel Tax-Exempt Perm Loan 16,048,000 6.332% 40.0 Term - 17 (yrs.) Index - 10Y T - 4.090% Spread - 198 bps HCD NPLH 11,279,429 3.000% 1.903% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - HCD NPLH 0
GP Loan HCD PHK+ 9,962,708 3.000% 1.788% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - GP Loan HCD PHK+ 532,848
HACR RDA Loan 1,411,842 3.000% 1.788% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Loan 75,511
County of Riverside PLHA 6,115,251 3.000% 1.788% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - County of Riverside PLHA 327,069 HACR Taxable Housing Bond 450,000 3.000% 1.788% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR Taxable Housing Bond 24,068 City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 25,054,167 2.000% 1.358% 55.0 Developer Fee Paid (non-deferred) 2,200,000 Accrued Deferred Interest - City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 1,011,774 HACR RDA Funds 2,104,640 3.000% 1.788% 55.0
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Funds 112,565
Deferred Developer Fee 1,300,000 0.000% 0.000% Priority Developer Fee Paid (non-deferred) 2,200,000 Capital Contributions
General Partner (Developer Fee) 6,219,319
Limited Partners 34,196,285 Fed LIHTC: $0.825 State LIHTC: $0.85 TOTAL SOURCES 116,225,476
Surplus/(Shortfall) (0)
Investor:

PERMANENT LOAN INTEREST RATE TRANCHE ATRANCHE B INVESTOR EQUITY STACK OTHER ASSUMPTIONS Base Rate 6.070% 6.070%
Cushion 0.200% 0.200% LIHTC Equity (Federal+State) 34,196,285 Current AFR: 4.70% Issuer 0.050% 0.050% 4,000 Issuer min/yr Subtotal LP Equity 34,196,285 Total U/W AFR: 4.70% Trustee 0.012% 0.000% 2,000 per annum
Total 6.332% 6.320%

SOURCES OF FUNDS - CONSTRUCTION
AMOUNT

INTEREST
RATE
TERM
(Mos.) COMMENTS
## Chase Tax-Exempt Construction Loan 46,486,381 6.430% 35 LIIF Secondary Taxable Construction Loan 5,383,627 5.575% 35 GP Loan HCD PHK+ 8,966,437 3.000% 35
Accrued Deferred Interest - GP Loan HCD PHK+ 532,848
HACR RDA Loan 1,411,842 3.000% 35
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Loan 75,511
County of Riverside PLHA 6,115,251 3.000% 35
Accrued Deferred Interest - County of Riverside PLHA 327,069 HACR Taxable Housing Bond 450,000 3.000% 35
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR Taxable Housing Bond 24,068 City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 25,054,167 2.000% 35 Accrued Deferred Interest - City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 1,011,774 HACR RDA Funds 2,104,640 3.000% 35
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Funds 112,565
Costs Deferred Until Conversion 6,857,107 See page 2 - right column Deferred Developer Fee 1,300,000
Capital Contributions
General Partner (Developer Fee) 2,000,000
Limited Partners* 8,012,190 #REF! Total Equity During Const. 8,012,190 23.43% TOTAL SOURCES 116,225,476 Syndication Costs 334,497
Surplus/(Shortfall) (0) Net Equity for TCAC 7,677,693
Sources Less Deferred To Conversion: 109,368,370

CONSTRUCTION LOAN INTEREST RATE CONSTRUCTION LOAN VALUATION TAX-EXEMPT BOND DATA Index Type: SOFR Restricted NOI 1,383,694 50% Test (see Page 7): 55.00% Current Index: 3.68% OAR 5.00% 50% Test Cushion: 4226034.639 Spread: 2.55% FMV per NOI 27,673,886 Issuer Inducement: TBD Base Interest Rate (not including cushion): 6.23% Agg. Credit Value @ 0.8249 34,255,433 CDLAC Allocation: 42,578,583 Cushion - Total 0.20% Perm-Only Soft Debt 12,275,700 Percent of CDLAC Allocation Used: 109.18% Interest Rate (All-In) 6.43% Total Value 74,205,019 Const-only portion: 30,438,381 LTV: 85.00% CDLAC Per-Unit Limit 69,256,000
Max. Const. Loan Amount 63,074,266 CDLAC 55% Limit 46,486,381 Commitment Amount TBD 50% Test Target 55.00%
Target Limit 46,486,381
Villa Verde 4PCT 9.03 Closing.xlsm
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 291 ends

Item 19.

Page 2 ends

Uses of Funds Version: 9.03 Closing Projections
Res Cost: 100.00% COST ALLOCATIONS LIHTC ELIGIBLE BASIS OTHER BASIS & COST ALLOCATIONS Res Sq Foot: 100.00% Assuming 266 Election? No
Deferred to Historic
Depreciable Completion Land/Basis Rehab ITC Tax
Total Total Non- Non- Constr./ or for Tax Credit Credit Basis TOTAL Per Unit Residential Residential Depreciable Residential Non-Resid. Expensed Amortized Rehab Acquisition Perm Conv. 50% Test Basis (Solar PV)

ACQUISITION COSTS
Total Purchase Price - Real Estate:
1,411,842
Land - Villa Verde 4PCT 1,411,842 12,171 1,411,842 0 1,411,842 0 1,411,842 Title/Recording/Escrow - Acquisition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal - Acquisition 19,699 170 19,699 0 19,699 0 0 0 0 19,699 Off-Site Improvements 50,750 438 50,750 0 0 50,750 0 0 0 0 50,750 50,750

HARD COSTS
Total Construction Contract:
49,056,665

NEW CONSTRUCTION
Demolition 23,164 200 23,164 0 23,164 0 0 0 0 0 23,164 0 Hard Costs-Unit Construction 30,921,000 266,560 30,921,000 0 30,921,000 0 0 30,921,000 0 30,921,000 30,921,000 Personal Property in Construction Contract 2,437,545 21,013 2,437,545 0 2,437,545 0 0 2,437,545 0 2,437,545 Site Improvements/Landscape Depreciable 6,842,516 58,987 6,842,516 0 6,842,516 0 6,842,516 0 6,842,516 Site Improvements Non-Depreciable 3,174,567 27,367 3,174,567 0 3,174,567 0 3,174,567 GC - General Conditions 1,619,759 13,963 1,619,759 0 1,619,759 0 1,619,759 0 1,619,759 1,619,759 GC - Overhead & Profit 2,899,901 24,999 2,899,901 0 2,899,901 0 2,899,901 0 2,899,901 2,899,901 GC - Insurance 604,146 5,208 604,146 0 604,146 0 604,146 0 604,146 604,146 GC - Bond Premium 483,317 4,167 483,317 0 483,317 0 483,317 0 483,317 483,317 Contingency - Escalation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contingency - Owner's Construction (10%) 4,905,667 42,290 4,905,667 0 4,905,667 0 4,905,667 0 4,905,667 4,905,667

SOFT COSTS
Architecture 2,887,875 24,895 2,887,875 0 2,887,875 0 2,887,875 0 2,887,875 2,887,875 0 Design/Engineering 598,788 5,162 598,788 0 598,788 0 598,788 0 598,788 598,788 0 Geotech/Soils Report 54,655 471 54,655 0 54,655 0 54,655 0 54,655 54,655 Phase I/II/Toxics Report 32,895 284 32,895 0 32,895 0 32,895 0 32,895 32,895 ALTA Survey 50,000 431 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 Special Inspections/Testing 241,914 2,085 241,914 0 241,914 0 241,914 0 241,914 241,914 LEED / HERS Rater 72,160 622 72,160 0 72,160 0 72,160 0 72,160 72,160 3rd Party Construction Manager 250,000 2,155 250,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 250,000 250,000 0 Consultant: Other 158,500 1,366 158,500 0 158,500 0 158,500 0 158,500 158,500 Local Development Impact Fees 2,770,277 23,882 2,770,277 0 2,770,277 0 2,770,277 0 2,770,277 2,770,277 Local Permits/Fees 1,428,089 12,311 1,428,089 0 1,428,089 0 1,428,089 0 1,428,089 1,428,089 Utilty Connection Fees/Dry Utility Consultant 3,614,342 31,158 3,614,342 0 3,614,342 0 3,614,342 0 3,614,342 3,614,342 0 Real Estate Taxes During Const 30,884 266 30,884 0 30,884 0 0 30,884 0 0 30,884 30,884 Insurance During Const 1,300,000 11,207 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 0 0 1,300,000 0 0 1,300,000 1,300,000 0 Appraisal 6,487 56 6,487 0 6,487 0 0 6,487 0 6,487 6,487 Market Study 22,895 197 22,895 0 22,895 0 0 0 0
Partnership Formation + Taxes 17,025 147 17,025 0 17,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tribal Monitoring Fee 50,000 431 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 City of Coachella CFD (Prepaid) 25,054,167 215,984 25,054,167 0 0 0 25,054,167 0 0 0 0 Soft Cost Contingency 755,001 6,509 755,001 0 755,001 0 755,001 0 755,001 755,001 Predev. Loan Interest/Fees 643,421 5,547 643,421 0 643,421 0 643,421 0 0 643,421 643,421 Construction Loan Interest - Chase Tax-Exempt 4,057,626 34,980 4,057,626 0 2,191,988 0 1,865,638 2,191,988 0 0 2,191,988 2,191,988 0 Construction Loan Interest - LIIF 1,191,990 10,276 1,191,990 0 239,359 0 952,631 239,359 0 239,359 239,359 0 Accrued Interest - GP Loan HCD PHK+ 532,848 4,594 532,848 0 331,685 0 201,163 331,685 0 331,685 331,685 Accrued Interest - HACR RDA Loan 75,511 651 75,511 0 47,004 0 28,507 47,004 0 47,004 47,004 Accrued Interest - County of Riverside PLHA 327,069 2,820 327,069 0 203,593 0 123,477 203,593 0 203,593 203,593 Accrued Interest - HACR Taxable Housing Bond 24,068 207 24,068 0 14,982 0 9,086 14,982 0 14,982 14,982 Accrued Interest - City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 1,011,774 8,722 1,011,774 0 631,288 0 380,485 631,288 0 631,288 631,288 Accrued Interest - HACR RDA Funds 112,565 970 112,565 0 70,069 0 42,496 70,069 0 70,069 70,069 Title/Recording/Escrow - Construction 118,289 1,020 118,289 0 118,289 0 0 118,289 0 0 118,289 118,289 Title/Recording/Escrow - Permanent 15,000 129 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 Legal (Owner): Construction Closing 99,211 855 99,211 0 99,211 0 99,211 0 0 99,211 99,211 Permanent Closing 10,000 86 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000
Organization of Ptnshp 15,000 129 15,000 0 15,000 0
Syndication - GP 27,702 239 27,702 0 27,702 0
Syndication - LP 85,000 733 85,000 0 85,000 0
Syndication Consulting 149,000 1,284 149,000 0 149,000 0 0 5,000 Audit/Cost Certification 57,795 498 57,795 0 57,795 20,000 0 TCAC Application/Res/Monitoring Fee 125,613 1,083 125,613 0 125,613 81,200 Marketing 200,000 1,724 200,000 0 200,000 0
Furnishings Not in Contract 228,947 1,974 228,947 0 228,947 0 228,947 0 228,947 Capitalized Replacement Reserve 58,000 500 58,000 0 58,000 58,000 Capitalized Operating Reserve (6 mos.) 1,140,527 9,832 1,140,527 0 1,140,527 1,140,527 HCD Pooled Reserve Fee 358,418 3,090 358,418 0 358,418 358,418 Developer Fee 9,719,319 83,787 9,719,319 0 9,719,319 0 9,719,319 0 5,188,961 9,719,319 9,719,319 0

COSTS OF ISSUANCE
Bond Counsel 75,000 647 75,000 0 30,439 0 44,561 30,439 0 30,439 30,439 Issuer Application Fee 2,500 22 2,500 0 1,015 0 1,485 1,015 0 1,015 1,015 Issuer Fee - Upfront 4,000 34 4,000 0 1,623 0 2,377 1,623 0 1,623 1,623 Issuer Fee - Annual During Const. 77,807 671 77,807 0 31,578 0 46,229 31,578 0 31,578 31,578 Construction Lender Origination Fee 412,268 3,554 412,268 0 167,318 0 244,950 167,318 0 167,318 167,318 Construction Lender Expenses 49,750 429 49,750 0 20,191 0 29,559 20,191 0 20,191 20,191 Construction Lender Counsel 75,000 647 75,000 0 30,439 0 44,561 30,439 0 30,439 30,439 Permanent Lender Expenses 90,048 776 90,048 0 0 0 90,048 0 0 0 0 Permanent Lender Counsel 75,000 647 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 Permanent Loan Origination Fee 160,480 1,383 160,480 0 0 0 160,480 0 0 0 0 Trustee Fee During Construction 8,000 69 8,000 0 878 0 7,122 0 0 878 878 CDLAC Fee 16,103 139 16,103 0 1,768 0 14,335 0 0 1,768 1,768 CDIAC Fee 5,000 43 5,000 0 549 0 4,451 0 0 549 549
COI Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal - Financing/Costs of Issuance 1,050,956 9,060 1,050,956 0 0 285,798 0 0 765,158 282,602 0 0 285,798 285,798 0

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 116,225,476 1,001,944 116,225,476 0 6,106,526 79,891,421 0 3,861,278 26,366,251 79,857,475 0 6,857,107 84,520,693 70,382,413 0 TDC Per Unit 1,001,944 100.00%
TDC Net of accrued interest: 114,141,641
TDC TCAC 115,890,979 115,890,979
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 292 ends

Item 19.

Page 3 ends

Developer Fee Calculation Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

TCAC DEVELOPER FEE LIMITS

ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL TOTAL
Eligible Basis less Developer Fee 0 70,138,156 0
Percentage of Basis in Fee 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
Total Developer Fee per Basis Limits 0 10,520,723 0 10,520,723 Developer Fee Cap per Regulations 10,520,723
Net Allowable Total Fee 10,520,723
Base Cash Developer Fee Limit 2,800,000
Large Project Boost 2,643,004
BIPOC Boost 0
Total Base Cash Fee Limit 5,443,004
Net Allowable Total Fee 10,520,723
Net Allowable Cash Fee 5,443,004
Fee Included in TCAC Application 0

OTHER APPLICABLE FEE LIMITS

CASH FEE LIMIT PRIORITY DDF LIMIT TOTAL FEE LIMIT
Fee Limit per HCD 2,200,000 1,300,000 10,520,723
Fee Limit per TCAC Hybrid Fee Limit 2,200,000 0 2,200,000

MOST RESTRICTIVE FEE LIMITS
Total Developer Fee Limit 2,200,000
Total Cash Fee Limit 2,200,000
Total Priority Deferred Fee Limit 0

ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPER FEE

ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Pct. of Potential Fee per Basis Limits 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% Allocation of Total Developer Fee 0 2,200,000 2,200,000

CASH DEVELOPER FEE BREAKOUT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Total Developer Fee 9,720,723
Total Cash Fee Paid 2,200,000
Non-Cash Fee per Program Limits 0
Non-Cash Fee per Funding Gap 7,520,723
Total Non-Cash Fee 7,520,723
AMOUNT % OF CASH FEE % OF TOTAL FEE
Construction Close 1,000,000 45.45% 10.29%
Completion 231,762 10.53% 2.38%
Conversion 565,238 25.69% 5.81%
Final LP Pay-in 1 403,000 18.32% 4.15%
Total Cash Fee 2,200,000
Plus: Priority Developer Fee 1,300,000 13.37%
Plus: Non-Priority DDF 0 0.00%
Plus: GP Capital 6,220,723 63.99%
Total Developer Fee 9,720,723
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 293 ends

Item 19.

Page 4 ends

Unit Mix & Rental Income Version: 9.03 Closing Projections UTILITY ALLOWANCES 0BR 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR
AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY FOR Villa Verde 4PCT - 105 132 158 - - LIHTC UNITS (% of Median) 40.52% 0 - - - - - -
0 - - - - - -
9% TCAC INCOME TARGETING PTS: 50.00 0 - - - - - -
0 - - - - - -
RENT LIMITS AS OF YEAR: 2025

RESIDENTIAL INCOME
LIHTC - Tier 1 Villa Verde 4PCT TCAC 30% AMI % of Units: 43.48% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
1BR 16 537 30.0% 629 524 524 8,384 100,608 16 1,667 1,143 18,288 219,456 320,064 2BR 30 808 30.0% 755 623 623 18,690 224,280 30 2,079 1,456 43,680 524,160 748,440 3BR 4 1,015 30.0% 873 715 715 2,860 34,320 4 2,819 2,104 8,416 100,992 135,312 TOTAL 50 29,934 359,208 50 70,384 844,608 1,203,816
NPLH Assisted Units
LIHTC - Tier 2 Villa Verde 4PCT TCAC 30% AMI % of Units: 13.91% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 6 808 30.0% 755 623 623 3,738 44,856 6 2,079 1,456 8,736 104,832 149,688 3BR 10 1,015 30.0% 873 715 715 7,150 85,800 10 2,819 2,104 21,040 252,480 338,280 TOTAL 16 10,888 130,656 16 29,776 357,312 487,968
LIHTC - Tier 3 Villa Verde 4PCT TCAC 50% AMI % of Units: 22.61% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 11 808 50.0% 1,258 1,126 1,126 12,386 148,632 8 2,079 953 7,624 91,488 240,120 3BR 15 1,015 50.0% 1,455 1,297 1,297 19,455 233,460 4 2,819 1,522 6,088 73,056 306,516 TOTAL 26 31,841 382,092 12 13,712 164,544 546,636
LIHTC - Tier 4 Villa Verde 4PCT TCAC 60% AMI % of Units: 20.00% NOT SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 8 808 60.0% 1,510 1,378 1,378 11,024 132,288 0 0 0 0 0 132,288 3BR 15 1,015 60.0% 1,746 1,588 1,588 23,820 285,840 0 0 0 0 0 285,840 TOTAL 23 34,844 418,128 0 0 0 418,128
Staff Units - Site 1 Villa Verde 4PCT
Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
2BR 1 808 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 0

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME
Quantity
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Monthly
Section 8
Income
Annual
Section 8
Income
Monthly
NA Income
Annual NA
Income
Monthly
Test C
Income
Annual
Test C
Income
Monthly
Test D
Income
Annual
Test D
Income
Grand
Total
Income
Total Floor
Area
LIHTC 115 107,507 1,290,084 113,872 1,366,464 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,656,548 97,692 Non-LIHTC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Staff Units 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 808
TOTAL 116 107,507 1,290,084 113,872 1,366,464 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,656,548 98,500

MISCELLANEOUS INCOME SUBSIDIZED UNIT MIX SUMMARY
Per Unit Per Month Monthly Total Annual Total
Laundry / Vending 3.60 418 5,016
Other 0.00 0 0
Parking 0.00 0 0 0BR 0 0 0 0 0 0
1BR 16 0 0 0 0 16
TOTAL 3.60 418 5,016 2BR 44 0 0 0 12 56
3BR 18 0 0 0 26 44
TOTAL 78 0 0 0 38 116

TOTAL ALL TYPES
Unit
Type
Villa Verde
4PCT Test 2 Test 3 0 0
1BR 16 0 0 0 0
2BR 56 0 0 0 0
3BR 44 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 116 0 0 0 0
Villa Verde 4PCT
Total Units
Units
Without
Subsidy
Units With
Test D
Units With
Test C
Units With
NA
Units With
Unit Type Section 8

Page 294 ends

Item 19.

Page 5 ends

Calculation of Tax Credits Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

FEDERAL CALIFORNIA

CONST/ CONST/

ACQUISITION REHAB TOTAL ACQUISITION REHAB TOTAL

TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS 0 79,857,475 79,857,475 0 0 0
Less:
50% Energy Investment Tax Credit (Res. Portion) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Tax Credit (Res. Portion) 0 0 0 0
Non-Eligible Federal Financing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Eligible Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soft Loan Basis Deduction 0 0 0 0 0 0
Voluntary Reduction for Tie-Breaker 0 0 0 0 0 0

ELIGIBLE BASIS 0 79,857,475 79,857,475 0 0 0
Threshold Basis Limit 145,315,758
TBL: Exclude GP Cap/DDF for 4%/State 0
REQUESTED UNADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS (For Tiebreaker) 0 79,857,475 79,857,475 0 0 0 HIGH COST ADJUSTMENT (Y or N) Y 100.0% 130.0% 100.0% 100.0% QCT 2024
ADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS 0 103,814,718 103,814,718 0 0 0

QUALIFIED CREDIT BASIS 0 103,814,718 103,814,718 0 0 0
CREDIT RATE (TCAC UNDERWRITING) Total State 13.00% 13.00% Annual Federal / Yr 1-3 State 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
Yr 4 State 1.00% 1.00%
MAX. POTENTIAL FEDERAL CREDIT (No Vol Basic Reduct/Actual Rate) Credit Rates 4.00% 4.00%
Potential Credit 0 4,152,589 4,152,589
Credit Rate Locked? YES
Jan-24
MAX. CREDIT AMOUNT PER TCAC UNDERWRITING
Annual Federal / Yr 1 State 0 4,152,589 4,152,589 0 0 0 Yr 2 State 0 0 0
Yr 3 State 0 0 0
Yr 4 State 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0

REQUESTED TOTAL STATE CREDIT AMOUNT N/A N/A N/A
MAX ANNUAL CREDITS PER GEOGRAPHIC REGION - BLENDED (x 125%) N/A Federal/State Proration N/A N/A N/A N/A

MAX ANNUAL FEDERAL PER PROJECT/STATE PER UNIT ALLOCATION N/A N/A

ACTUAL TCAC CREDIT RESERVATION
Annual Federal / Total State N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CREDITS (Lesser of above)
Annual Federal / Total State 0 4,152,589 4,152,589 0 (0) 0 UNADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS AT MAX CREDIT AMOUNT 0 79,857,481 79,857,481 0 (0) 0 UNADJUSTED BASIS EXCLUDED AT MAX CREDIT AMOUNT (0) (6) (6) (0) 0 0 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE - TEN YEAR TOTAL 41,525,890 0
TOTAL STATE + FEDERAL LIHTC AMOUNTS - 10 YEARS
Total Federal + State 41,525,890 Blended Credit Request: 4,152,589 General Partner Share 0.01% 4,153 Est. 125% Target for Inland Empire: N/A Limited Partner Share 99.99% 41,521,737 Credit Request Under / (Over) Geographic Region: N/A FIRST YEAR CREDIT CALCULATION (Federal)
Actual Basis Method? Y Acquisition Rehab/NC "A" Bldgs: Acq Rehab/NC "B" Bldgs: Acq Rehab/NC Maximum Potential Federal Credit w/ Actual Basis-Annual 0 4,152,589 0 4,152,589 0 0 Wgt Avg Lease-up (from Page 7) 79.3% 79.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Maximum Potential Prorated Credit w/ Actual Basis 0 3,294,989 0 0 TCAC Credit Reservation-Annual 0 4,152,589 0 4,152,589 0 0 First Year Credit (Lesser of Above) 0 3,294,989 0 0
ENERGY TAX CREDIT CALCULATION *APPLICABLE FRACTION
Total PV Hard Costs 0 Number of Total
Related Soft Costs (Eng, Interst, etc.) - Units Fraction Sq Ft Fraction Related Developer Fee - LIHTC 115 100.0000% 97,692 100.0000% Total ITC Depreciable Basis - Non-LIHTC 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% less: Grants/Rebates -
Tax-Exempt Portion 0.01% TOTAL 115 100.0000% 97,692 100.0000% less: Tax-Exempt Portion -
Net Basis for Investment Tax Credit -
Credit Percentage 0.0% Applicable Fraction 100.0000%
(Lesser of Low Income
Total Investment Tax Credit 0 Units or Sq Ft %)
Residential Portion of Credit 0
Total Elig. 45L Costs (per Program Limits) 0 HISTORIC CREDIT CALCULATION Tax-Exempt Portion 0.01%
less: Tax-Exempt Portion - Total Depreciable Basis 79,891,421 Net Basis for 45L Tax Credit - less: Historic Acquisition Basis 0 Credit Percentage 0.0% less: Site Work 6,842,516
less: Personal Property 2,666,492
Total 45L Tax Credit 0 Basis for Historic Credit (p. 1a, right column) 70,382,413 Residential Portion of Credit 0 % Project SF Historic: 58.16% Basis for HTC (Adjusted by SF): 40,936,192
Tax-Exempt Use Portion 0.01%
(Less Tax-Exempt Use Portion) (4,094)
Basis for Historic Credit (p. 1a, right column) 40,932,098 Credit Percentage 0.0%
Res. Portion of Historic Basis (cost cert) 40,932,098
Perentage related to Residential 100.0%
Total Historic Credit 0
Res. Portion of Historic Credit 0
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 295 ends

Item 19.

Page 6 ends

Base Year Income & Expense Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

INCOME
Scheduled Gross Income - Residential 1,290,084
Total Gross Subsidy Income - Section 8 1,366,464
Misc. Income 5,016
Vacancy Loss - Residential 5.87% (76,017)
Vacancy Loss - Section 8 6.28% (85,842)
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 2,499,705

EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL
Administrative
Advertising 1,500
Legal 3,000
Accounting/Audit 17,500
Security 53,421
Other: Misc. Admin/Office Expenses 56,474
Total Administrative 131,895
Management Fee 103,500
Utilities
Electricity 61,053
Water/Sewer 133,553
Resident Utility Reimbursement 0
Total Utilities 194,606
Payroll/Payroll Taxes
On-Site Manager/Office Admin 86,611
Maintenance Payroll 78,051
Payroll Taxes/Benefits 51,725
Total Payroll/Payroll Taxes 216,387
Insurance 225,852
Maintenance
Painting 7,632
Repairs 28,771
Trash Removal 67,500
Exterminating 7,000
Grounds 22,895
Fire Protection/Contracts/HVAC/Supplies 15,263
Total Maintenance 149,061
Other
Special Assessements 0
Misc. Tax/License 10,000
Total Other 10,000
Resident Services
Tenant Services 15,263
Tenant Activities 0
0 Total Resident Services 15,263
Replacement Reserve 58,000
Real Estate Taxes 11,447
TOTAL EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL 1,116,011
Per Unit Per Annum (incl. Reserves) 9,621
Per Unit Per Annum (w/o taxes/res/svc)) 8,891
TCAC Minimum (w/o taxes/res/svc) 4,700
NET AVAILABLE INCOME 1,383,694
Annual Soft Loan Fees:

Less: Local Agency Monitoring Fee (11,600)
ADJUSTED NET AVAILABLE INCOME: TOTAL 1,372,094
Mandatory Soft Debt Payments:

HCD NPLH 47,374
TOTAL MANDATORY SOFT DEBT PAYMENTS 47,374
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.15
Mandatory Soft Debt Payments Grossed Up for DCR Factor 54,480 AVAILABLE FOR SENIOR DEBT SERVICE (NET OF OP SUBSIDY) 32,167 AVAILABLE FOR SENIOR DEBT SERVICE (OP SUBSIDY OVERHANG) 1,113,584 NET AVAILABLE INCOME AFTER SENIOR DEBT SERVICE 178,969
NET AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL ONLY INCOME 0
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 296 ends

Item 19.

Page 7 ends

Mortgage Calculation/Bond Ratios Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

TRANCHE A
Uses baseline year NOI; includes annual fees
Financing Type: Key Bank Freddie Tel Tax-Exempt Perm Loan Underwriting Maximum
Constraint Loan Amount
Rate: 6.270%
Debt Service Coverage 1.15 16,624,783 Amortization (mos): 480 Lender Commitment 16,048,387 NOI for DS: 1,317,615
Max PMT @ DSCR: 1,145,752
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE 16,048,387 Annual Fees: 10,312
Annual DS Payment: 1,135,439

BOND / REHABILITATION RATIOS
Tax-Exempt Financing Ratio CDLAC Allocation Limit Effective Date Limits: 1/1/24 Units Per-Unit Limit Total Limit
Studio and SRO 0 522,000 0
One BR 16 544,000 8,704,000
Series A Bonds 16,048,000 Two BR 56 580,000 32,480,000
Series B Bonds 0 Three BR 44 638,000 28,072,000
Short Term Bonds (Construction Loan Portion) 30,438,381 Four BR or More 0 671,000 0 TOTAL TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING 46,486,381
TOTAL 69,256,000
TOTAL BASIS + LAND ALLOCATION 84,520,693 Potential Bond Size 46,486,381 Over/(Under) -22,769,619
Percent Tax-Exempt Financing 55.00%
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 297 ends

Item 19.

Page 8 ends

Lease-Up / Placed-in-Service Schedule Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

SCHEDULE
Dates
Months to
Milestone
Cumulative
Months
Start of Construction March 1, 2026 0 0 Partnership Closing by Mid-March Completion January 1, 2028 22 22
100% Occupancy June 1, 2028 5 27
Conversion February 1, 2029 8 35
Form(s) 8609 September 1, 2029 7 42
LIHTC SCHEDULE LIHTC SCHEDULE -- 2/3 CREDITS OPERATIONS SCHEDULE SINGLE BUILDING / MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP A SINGLE BLDG / MULTIPLE BLDGS - GROUP A YEAR 0 1st Tax Credit Year: 2028 1st Tax Credit Year (2/3 Units): 2029 2027 Total # Units: 115
Completed Lease Up by Month
Total QO Total Vacated Cumulative Cumulative Month No. Units Percent Month No. Units Percent Month by Month by Month Occupancy Occupancy % Jan-29 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0.0% Jan-28 20 0 20 17.39% Feb-29 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0.0%
Feb-28 19 0 39 33.91% Mar-29 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0.0%
Mar-28 19 0 58 50.43% Apr-29 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0.0%
Apr-28 19 0 77 66.96% May-29 0 0.0% May-27 0 0.0%
May-28 19 0 96 83.48% Jun-29 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0.0%
Jun-28 19 0 115 100.00% Jul-29 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0.0%
Jul-28 0 0 115 100.00% Aug-29 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0.0%
Aug-28 0 0 115 100.00% Sep-29 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0.0%
Sep-28 0 0 115 100.00% Oct-29 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0.0%
Oct-28 0 0 115 100.00% Nov-29 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0.0%
Nov-28 0 0 115 100.00% Dec-29 0 0.0% Dec-27 0 0.0%
Dec-28 0 0 115 100.00% Total 0 0.0% Total 0 0.0%
1st Year Occupancy: 2028 79.35% Total Avg % Qual. Occ. 0.0% Total % Operating in First Year 0.00% MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP B MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP B YEAR 1 (cumulative) 2028 1st Tax Credit Year: 2029 1st Tax Credit Year (2/3 Units): 2030 Total # Units: 0
Total QO Total Vacated Cumulative Cumulative Month No. Units Percent Month No. Units Percent Month by Month by Month Occupancy Occupancy % Jan-30 0 0.0% Jan-28 21 18.1% Jan-29 0 0 0 0.00% Feb-30 0 0.0% Feb-28 19 16.4%
Feb-29 0 0 0 0.00% Mar-30 0 0.0% Mar-28 19 16.4%
Mar-29 0 0 0 0.00% Apr-30 0 0.0% Apr-28 19 16.4%
Apr-29 0 0 0 0.00% May-30 0 0.0% May-28 19 16.4%
May-29 0 0 0 0.00% Jun-30 0 0.0% Jun-28 19 16.4%
Jun-29 0 0 0 0.00% Jul-30 0 0.0% Jul-28 0 0.0%
Jul-29 0 0 0 0.00% Aug-30 0 0.0% Aug-28 0 0.0%
Aug-29 0 0 0 0.00% Sep-30 0 0.0% Sep-28 0 0.0%
Sep-29 0 0 0 0.00% Oct-30 0 0.0% Oct-28 0 0.0%
Oct-29 0 0 0 0.00% Nov-30 0 0.0% Nov-28 0 0.0%
Nov-29 0 0 0 0.00% Dec-30 0 0.0% Dec-28 0 0.0%
Dec-29 0 0 0 0.00% Total 0 0.0% Total 116 100.0%
1st Year Occupancy: 2029 0.00% Total Avg % Qual. Occ. 0.0% Total % Operating in 2nd Year 79.5% PIS SCHEDULE FOR ACQ BASIS DEPRECIATION PIS SCHEDULE FOR REHAB/NC BASIS DEPRECIATION PIS SCHEDULE FOR SITEWORK/PERS. PROP. DEPRECIATION YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 1
Mid-Month Convention 2027 Mid-Month Convention 2027 Mid-Year Convention 2027 Bldg. PIS by Month Bldg. PIS by Month Bldg. PIS by Month Month No. Units Dep. Percent Month Building No. No. Units Percent Month Building No. No. Units Percent Jan-27 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0 0.0%
Feb-27 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0 0.0%
Mar-27 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0 0.0%
Apr-27 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0 0.0%
May-27 0 0.0% May-27 0 0 0.0% May-27 0 0 0.0%
Jun-27 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0 0.0%
Jul-27 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0 0.0%
Aug-27 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0 0.0%
Sep-27 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0 0.0%
Oct-27 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0 0.0%
Nov-27 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0 0.0%
Dec-27 0 0.0% Dec-27 0 0 0.0% Dec-27 0 0 0.0%
TOTAL 0 0.0% TOTAL 0 0.0% TOTAL 0 0.0%
Total Avg % PIS Y1 0.0% Total Avg % PIS Y1 0.0% Total Avg % PIS Y1 0.0% YEAR 2 (cumulative) YEAR 2 (cumulative) YEAR 2 (non-cumulative) Jan-28 0 0.0% Jan-28 20 116 4.2% Jan-28 20 116 0.0%
Feb-28 0 0.0% Feb-28 0 116 8.3% Feb-28 0 0 0.0%
Mar-28 0 0.0% Mar-28 0 116 8.3% Mar-28 0 0 0.0%
Apr-28 0 0.0% Apr-28 0 116 8.3% Apr-28 0 0 0.0%
May-28 0 0.0% May-28 0 116 8.3% May-28 0 0 0.0%
Jun-28 0 0.0% Jun-28 0 116 8.3% Jun-28 0 0 0.0%
Jul-28 0 0.0% Jul-28 0 116 8.3% Jul-28 0 0 8.3%
Aug-28 0 0.0% Aug-28 0 116 8.3% Aug-28 0 0 8.3%
Sep-28 0 0.0% Sep-28 0 116 8.3% Sep-28 0 0 8.3%
Oct-28 0 0.0% Oct-28 0 116 8.3% Oct-28 0 0 8.3%
Nov-28 0 0.0% Nov-28 0 116 8.3% Nov-28 0 0 8.3%
Dec-28 0 0.0% Dec-28 0 116 8.3% Dec-28 0 0 8.3%
TOTAL 0 0.0% TOTAL 116 95.8% TOTAL 116 50.0%
Total Avg % PIS Y2 0.0% Total Avg % PIS Y2 95.8% Total Avg % PIS Y2 50.0% Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 298 ends

Item 19.

Page 9 ends

Calculation of Net Syndication Proceeds Version: 9.03 Closing Projections As of Closing
Total Federal Credit (10 yr) & State Credit 41,525,890 0 Total Federal Credit 41,525,890 0
Total State Credit 0 0
Gross Proceeds (Total) 34,196,285 0
Gross Proceeds - Federal Credit 34,255,433 0
Gross Proceeds - State Credit 0 0
Gross Proceeds (net of Energy/Historic Credit Proceeds) 34,196,285 0 Less: LP Syndication Costs
Attorney 127,702
Accountant 57,795
Consulting 149,000
Other:

Total Syndication Costs 334,497 0
Total Syndication Costs/Gross Proceeds 0.98% (Syndication Load) 0.00000% Net Proceeds 33,861,788 0
Net Proceeds/Total Fed and State Credit 0.815438 tax credit price 0.00000 Gross Proceeds (Total)/Total Fed and State Credit 0.823493 tax credit price 0.00000 Gross Proceeds - Federal/State Disaggregated
Federal 0.825000 tax credit price 1.00000
State 0.850000 tax credit price 0.70000
Net Proceeds - Federal/State Disaggregated
Federal 0.8168484 tax credit price 0.00000
State - tax credit price 0.00000
Total Equity
Gross Proceeds from LIHTC 34,196,285
Gross Proceeds from Energy Credits 0
Gross Proceeds from Historic Credit 0
Total Equity 34,196,285
Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 299 ends

Item 19.

Page 10 ends

TCAC Calculations & Scoring Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

THRESHOLD BASIS LIMIT
County: Riverside TCAC Project #:
9% or 4% credits: 4% CDLAC Project #:

Year: 2025
Base Limits for Geographic Region Threshold Basis Limit for This Project Per Unit
Unit Type 9% 4% Unit Type # Units Basis Limit Total
0 BR 324,988 324,988 0 BR 0 324,988 0
1 BR 374,708 374,708 1 BR 16 374,708 5,995,328
2 BR 452,000 452,000 2 BR 56 452,000 25,312,000
3 BR 578,560 578,560 3 BR 44 578,560 25,456,640
4 BR 644,552 644,552 4 BR 0 644,552 0
5 BR 644,552 644,552 5 BR 0 644,552 0
116 56,763,968
Energy/Resource Efficiency Boosts Additional Basis Adjustments Boost for Prevailing Wage 20.0% 11,352,794
Renewables (50% tot./90% area) 0% Boost for Project Labor Agreement 0.0% 0 Renewables (75% CA/90% area) 0% Boost for Parking beneath Units 0.0% 0 Title 24 + 15% 0% Boost for Childcare 0.0% 0
Post-rehab improvement > 80% 0% Boost for 100% Special Needs 0.0% 0 Greywater landscaping 0% Boost for elevator service 0.0% 0 Community gardens > 60 s.f. 0% Boost for Type I construction 0.0% 0 Natural flooring kitchens 0% Boost for Type III construction 0.0% 0 EPA Indoor Air Plus Program met 0% Boost for Energy / Resource Efficiency 0.0% 0 Toxic/Seismic Abatement Costs 0.0% 0
Local Development Impact Fees 0
Subtotal Efficiency (Max 10%) 0% High Opportunity Area 0.0% 0 BONDS: Boost for units ≤ 50% AMI (excl. CA credit project) 1.0% 12,488,073 BONDS: Boost for units ≤ 35% AMI (excl. CA credit project) 2.0% 64,710,924 Total Threshold Basis Limit Boosts 88,551,790
Total Threshold Basis Limit 145,315,758
Potential Eligible Basis 79,857,475
Eligible Basis Surplus/(Deficit) 65,458,283

TCAC HIGH COST TEST
Federal Credit CA State Credit HCD 2017 UMR
Total Eligible Basis 79,857,475 79,857,475 79,857,475
Total Adjusted TBL 145,315,758 68,116,762 68,116,762
Percentage of ATBL 54.95% 117.24% 117.24%
Amount Over/(Under) 130% Limit (160% Limit for HCD) (109,053,010) (8,694,315) (29,129,344) Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 300 ends

Item 19.

Page 11 ends

15-Year Cash Flow Version: 9.03 Closing Projections

Assumptions
Rent Increase: Residential Tenant Rents 2.00% Rent Increase - Section 8 2.00% Perm Loan - % Debt Svc Yr -1 0.0% Rent Increase: Commercial Rents 2.00% Rent Increase - NA 2.00% Perm Loan - % Debt Svc Yr 0 0.0% Expenses Increase: 3.00% Rent Increase - Test C 2.00% Perm Loan - % Debt Svc Yr 1 0.0% Reserve Increase: 0.00% Rent Increase - Test D 2.00% Perm Loan - % Debt Svc Yr 2 91.7% Perm Loan - % Debt Svc Yr 3 100.0%
Credit Period Year: (1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Aggregrate Annual Rent Increase #DIV/0! 28.26% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% GROSS POTENTIAL INCOME - RESIDENTIAL 0 0 1,025,950 1,315,886 1,342,203 1,369,047 1,396,428 1,424,357 1,452,844 1,481,901 1,511,539 1,541,770 1,572,605 1,604,057 1,636,138 1,668,861 1,702,238 1,736,283 1,771,009 Incremental Income: Section 8 0 0 1,086,692 1,393,793 1,421,669 1,450,103 1,479,105 1,508,687 1,538,860 1,569,638 1,601,030 1,633,051 1,665,712 1,699,026 1,733,007 1,767,667 1,803,020 1,839,081 1,875,862 Misc. Income 0 0 3,989 5,116 5,219 5,323 5,429 5,538 5,649 5,762 5,877 5,995 6,114 6,237 6,362 6,489 6,619 6,751 6,886 Vacancy Loss - Residential 5.9% 0 0 (60,453) (77,537) (79,088) (80,670) (82,283) (83,929) (85,607) (87,319) (89,066) (90,847) (92,664) (94,517) (96,408) (98,336) (100,302) (102,309) (104,355) Vacancy Loss - Section 8 6.3% 0 0 (68,267) (87,559) (89,310) (91,096) (92,918) (94,776) (96,672) (98,605) (100,578) (102,589) (104,641) (106,734) (108,868) (111,046) (113,267) (115,532) (117,843) GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME 0 0 1,987,912 2,549,699 2,600,693 2,652,707 2,705,761 2,759,877 2,815,074 2,871,376 2,928,803 2,987,379 3,047,127 3,108,069 3,170,231 3,233,635 3,298,308 3,364,274 3,431,560 Operating Expenses w/ Standard Inflator 3.0% 0 0 841,392 1,089,751 1,122,444 1,156,117 1,190,801 1,226,525 1,263,320 1,301,220 1,340,257 1,380,464 1,421,878 1,464,535 1,508,471 1,553,725 1,600,337 1,648,347 1,697,797 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 841,392 1,089,751 1,122,444 1,156,117 1,190,801 1,226,525 1,263,320 1,301,220 1,340,257 1,380,464 1,421,878 1,464,535 1,508,471 1,553,725 1,600,337 1,648,347 1,697,797 Total Expenses - Residential 3.0% 0 0 841,392 1,089,751 1,122,444 1,156,117 1,190,801 1,226,525 1,263,320 1,301,220 1,340,257 1,380,464 1,421,878 1,464,535 1,508,471 1,553,725 1,600,337 1,648,347 1,697,797 Total Expenses - Commercial 3.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NET OPERATING INCOME 0 0 1,146,520 1,459,948 1,478,250 1,496,590 1,514,961 1,533,352 1,551,754 1,570,156 1,588,546 1,606,915 1,625,248 1,643,535 1,661,760 1,679,911 1,697,971 1,715,928 1,733,763 REPLACEMENT RESERVE 58,000 0 0 46,125 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 Mandatory Annual Soft Loan Payments 0 0 0 43,426 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 47,374 Local Agency Monitoring Fee 11,600 0 0 9,225 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 11,600 NET REMAINING INCOME 0 0 1,091,170 1,346,922 1,361,276 1,379,616 1,397,987 1,416,378 1,434,780 1,453,182 1,471,573 1,489,941 1,508,275 1,526,561 1,544,786 1,562,937 1,580,998 1,598,954 1,616,789 PERM LOAN - TRANCHE A Key Bank Freddie Tel Tax-Exempt Perm Loan Principal Balance (Ending) 16,048,000 0 0 0 15,971,351 15,873,941 15,770,244 15,659,856 15,542,343 15,417,247 15,284,079 15,142,316 14,991,405 14,830,756 14,659,738 14,477,685 14,283,883 14,077,574 13,857,952 13,624,156 Annual Issuer Fee 4,000 0.050% 0 0 0 0 7,986 7,937 7,885 7,830 7,771 7,709 7,642 7,571 7,496 7,415 7,330 7,239 7,142 7,039 6,929 Trustee 2,000 0.000% 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Series A Bond P&I 1,096,046 0 0 0 913,372 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 1,096,046 Interest Payment 0 0 0 836,723 998,636 992,350 985,658 978,534 970,951 962,878 954,284 945,135 935,397 925,029 913,993 902,244 889,738 876,424 862,251 Principal Payment 0 0 0 76,649 97,410 103,697 110,389 117,512 125,096 133,169 141,763 150,911 160,650 171,017 182,053 193,802 206,309 219,623 233,796 TOTAL SERIES A DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 913,372 1,106,032 1,105,983 1,105,931 1,105,876 1,105,818 1,105,755 1,105,688 1,105,618 1,105,542 1,105,462 1,105,376 1,105,285 1,105,188 1,105,085 1,104,975 NET CASH FLOW 0 0 1,091,170 433,550 255,244 273,633 292,056 310,502 328,963 347,427 365,884 384,324 402,733 421,099 439,410 457,652 475,810 493,869 511,814 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (All Debt) N/A N/A N/A 1.15 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 TCAC NET CASH FLOW TESTS:

Percent Gross Revenue N/A N/A 51.55% 9.76% 9.22% 9.69% 10.14% 10.57% 10.98% 11.36% 11.73% 12.08% 12.41% 12.72% 13.02% 13.29% 13.55% 13.79% 14.01% 25% Debt Service Test N/A N/A N/A 16.39% 16.00% 27.83% 29.43% 31.03% 32.63% 34.24% 35.84% 37.44% 39.04% 40.64% 42.23% 43.81% 45.39% 46.96% 48.53% Alternative:

Year 15 Test - Greater of: (a) 2% Gross Income OR (b) lesser of $25,000 or $500/unit 70,238

DISTRIBUTION OF CASH FLOW
LP Asset Mgt. Fee Annual Amt: 7,500 0 0 0 6,875 7,725 7,957 8,195 8,441 8,695 8,955 9,224 9,501 9,786 10,079 10,382 10,693 11,014 11,344 11,685 Inflator: 3.00%
GP Partnership Mgt. Fee Annual Amt: 32,004 0 0 0 29,337 32,964 33,953 34,972 36,021 37,101 38,214 39,361 40,542 41,758 43,011 44,301 45,630 46,999 48,409 49,861 Inflator: 3.00%
Priority Def. Developer Fee Annual Amt: 1,300,000 0 0 0 397,338 214,555 231,723 248,889 207,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DDF Note Interest Rate: 0.00%
Residual Receipts Loans Total % 50.00%
HCD NPLH 24.30% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,114 34,406 36,483 38,554 40,617 42,671 44,715 46,746 48,764 50,765 52,747 54,710 HACR RDA Loan 3.04% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 890 4,307 4,567 4,826 5,084 5,341 5,597 5,851 6,104 6,354 6,602 6,848 County of Riverside PLHA 13.18% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,857 18,654 19,780 20,902 22,021 23,135 24,243 25,344 26,438 27,522 28,598 29,662 HACR Taxable Housing Bond 0.97% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 1,373 1,456 1,538 1,620 1,702 1,784 1,865 1,945 2,025 2,104 2,183 City of Coachella Loan (Capitalized CFD Fees) 53.98% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,801 76,424 81,037 85,636 90,220 94,783 99,322 103,835 108,315 112,760 117,164 121,523 HACR RDA Funds 4.53% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,327 6,420 6,807 7,194 7,579 7,962 8,343 8,722 9,099 9,472 9,842 10,208 General Partner 0.01% 0 0 109 0 0 0 0 3 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 Limited Partner 99.99% 0 0 1,091,061 0 0 0 0 29,270 141,569 150,114 158,634 167,124 175,577 183,986 192,344 200,644 208,877 217,036 225,111 TOTAL Cumulative to GP: 0 0 0 521,550 354,124 375,480 396,957 360,006 157,086 161,799 166,653 171,652 176,802 182,106 187,569 193,196 198,992 204,962 211,111 TOTAL Cumulative to LP: 0 0 0 6,875 7,725 7,957 8,195 8,441 8,695 8,955 9,224 9,501 9,786 10,079 10,382 10,693 11,014 11,344 11,685 Maximum Net Cash Flow to GP: 90% 0 0 0 68,750 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 92,241 95,008 97,858 100,794 103,818 106,932 110,140 113,444 116,848 Excess Distributions to GP: 0 0 0 452,800 276,874 295,912 315,003 275,593 70,141 72,245 74,412 76,645 78,944 81,312 83,752 86,264 88,852 91,518 94,263 Villa Verde 4PCT

Page 301 ends

Item 19.

Page 1 ends

Prepared For: Abode Communities
Prepared By: California Housing Partnership
Version: 6.03 Closing Projections
Revised: 3/16/2026
Filename:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sources of Funds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 1 Cash Flow (Residential)…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………11a Uses of Funds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 2 Cash Flow (Commercial) …………………………………………..………………………..……..………………11b Developer Fee Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 3 Outstanding Debt & Reserves (Book)…………………………………………..………………………..……..…12a Unit Mix & Rental Income…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 4 Outstanding Debt & Reserves (Tax)…………………………………………..………………………..……..……12b Tax Credit Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 5 Net Cash Flow Fee Accruals…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………12c Base Year Income & Expense…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 6 Schedule of Existing Debt…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………12d Mortgage Calculation & Bond Ratios…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 7 Schedule of Deductions…………………………………………..………………………..……..………………13 Lease-up/Placed-in-Service Schedule…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 8 Analysis of Taxable Income…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………14 Net Syndication Proceeds…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 9 Capital Account & Exit Tax Liability…………………………………………..………………………..……..……15 TCAC Calculations…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 10a Investment Summary…………………………………………..………………………..……..……………………16 TCAC Transfer Event Calculation…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………………………………..………………………..…….. 10b Net Quarterly Benefits…………………………………………..………………………..……..…………………17

SOURCES OF FUNDS - PERMANENT
AMOUNT
TOTAL

INTEREST
COST
OID

INTEREST
RATE
AMORT
(Yr) COMMENTS
Total Permanent Debt: 2,123,000
0 Key Bank Taxable Permanent Loan 2,123,000 6.940% 40.0 Term - 17 (yrs.) Index - 10Y T - 4.080% Spread - 266 bps GP Certificated Credit Sale Loan 5,870,918 0.000% 0.000% 55.0 HACR RDA Loan 450,000 4.720% 4.720% 55.0 Per Unit: 12,500 Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Loan132,591
City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 7,775,431 2.000% 1.358% 55.0 Per Unit: 215,984 Accrued Deferred Interest - City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 286,595 Total Developer Fee Paid (non-deferred): 1,440,000 Deferred Developer Fee 200,000 0.000% 0.000% Priority 200,000 Non-Priority 0 Developer Fee Paid (non-deferred) 1,440,000
Capital Contributions
GP Capital - Sponsor 100 Synd Costs 250,709
Limited Partners 17,353,798 Fed LIHTC: $0.8175 State LIHTC: $0.85 TOTAL SOURCES 34,192,433
Surplus/(Shortfall) 0
Investor:

PERMANENT LOAN INTEREST RATE TRANCHE ATRANCHE B INVESTOR EQUITY STACK OTHER ASSUMPTIONS Base Rate 6.740% 6.740%
Cushion 0.200% 0.200% LIHTC Equity (Federal+State) 17,353,798 Current AFR: 4.72% Total 6.940% 6.940%

SOURCES OF FUNDS - CONSTRUCTION
AMOUNT

INTEREST
RATE
TERM
(Mos.) COMMENTS
Closing Deadline 3/30/26
## Chase Taxable Construction Loan 20,664,389 6.550% 31 GP Certificated Credit Sale Loan 880,637 0.000% 31 Purchase Price Installments: Closing HACR RDA Loan 450,000 4.720% 31 Completion
Accrued Deferred Interest - HACR RDA Loan132,591 Conversion City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 7,775,431 2.000% 31 Accrued Deferred Interest - City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 286,595 Costs Deferred Until Conversion 695,620 See page 2 - right column Deferred Developer Fee 200,000
Capital Contributions
GP Capital - Sponsor 100
Limited Partners* 3,107,070 #REF! Total Equity During Const. 3,107,070 17.90% TOTAL SOURCES 34,192,433 Syndication Costs 250,709
Surplus/(Shortfall) 0 Net Equity for TCAC 2,856,361
Sources Less Deferred To Conversion: 33,496,813

CONSTRUCTION LOAN INTEREST RATE CONSTRUCTION LOAN VALUATION TAX-EXEMPT BOND DATA Index Type: SOFR Restricted NOI 180,791 50% Test (see Page 7): N/A Current Index: 3.66% OAR 5.00% 50% Test Cushion: N/A
Spread: 2.69% FMV per NOI 3,615,812 Issuer Inducement: TBD Base Interest Rate (not including cushion): 6.35% Agg. Credit Value @ 0.8174 16,937,634 CDLAC Allocation: TBD Cushion - Total 0.20% Perm-Only Soft Debt 880,637 Percent of CDLAC Allocation Used: 0.00% Interest Rate (All-In) 6.55% Total Value 21,434,083 Const-only portion: 18,541,389 LTV: 90.00% CDLAC Per-Unit Limit N/A
Max. Const. Loan Amount 19,290,675 CDLAC 55% Limit N/A
Commitment Amount TBD 50% Test Target 55.00%
Target Limit N/A
Villa Verde 6.03 9PCT Closing Projections.xlsm
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 302 ends

Item 19.

Page 2 ends

Uses of Funds Version: 6.03 Closing Projections
Variance v6.02 Res Cost: 100.00% COST ALLOCATIONS LIHTC ELIGIBLE BASIS OTHER BASIS & COST ALLOCATIONS Res Sq Foot: 100.00% Assuming 266 Election? No
Deferred to Historic
Depreciable Completion Land/Basis Rehab ITC Tax
Total Total Non- Non- Constr./ or for Tax Credit Credit Basis TOTAL TOTAL Variance Per Unit Residential Residential Depreciable Residential Non-Resid. Expensed Amortized Rehab Acquisition Perm Conv. 50% Test Basis (Solar PV)

ACQUISITION COSTS
Total Purchase Price - Real Estate:
450,000
Land - Villa Verde 9PCT 450,000 438,158 11,842 12,500 450,000 0 450,000 0 450,000 Title/Recording/Escrow - Acquisition 3,553 3,553 0 99 3,553 0 3,553 0 0 0 0 3,553 Off-Site Improvements 15,750 15,750 0 438 15,750 0 15,750 0 0 15,750 0 15,750 15,750

HARD COSTS
Total Construction Contract:
16,306,407
0 NEW CONSTRUCTION
Demolition 0 5,791 (5,791) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hard Costs-Unit Construction 8,865,017 11,917,213 (3,052,196) 246,250 8,865,017 0 8,865,017 0 0 8,865,017 0 8,865,017 8,865,017 Personal Property in Construction Contract 1,700,379 486,542 1,213,837 47,233 1,700,379 0 1,700,379 0 0 1,700,379 0 1,700,379 Site Improvements/Landscape 2,293,868 1,372,815 921,053 63,719 2,293,868 0 2,293,868 0 2,293,868 0 2,293,868 Non Basis Site Improvements 1,092,502 0 1,092,502 30,347 1,092,502 0 1,092,502 0 1,092,502 GC - General Conditions 1,013,493 1,013,493 0 28,153 1,013,493 0 1,013,493 0 1,013,493 0 1,013,493 1,013,493 GC - Overhead & Profit 963,926 953,026 10,900 26,776 963,926 0 963,926 0 963,926 0 963,926 963,926 GC - Insurance 200,818 198,547 2,271 5,578 200,818 0 200,818 0 200,818 0 200,818 200,818 GC - Bond Premium 160,654 158,838 1,816 4,463 160,654 0 160,654 0 160,654 0 160,654 160,654 Construction - Other - PhotoVoltaic System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency - Escalation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Contingency - Owner's Construction (5%) 815,320 967,321 (152,001) 22,648 815,320 0 815,320 0 815,320 0 815,320 815,320

SOFT COSTS
Architecture 641,765 641,765 0 17,827 641,765 0 641,765 0 641,765 0 641,765 641,765 0 Design/Engineering 11,842 11,842 0 329 11,842 0 11,842 0 11,842 0 11,842 11,842 0 Geotech/Soils Report 1,445 1,445 0 40 1,445 0 1,445 0 1,445 0 1,445 1,445 Phase I/II/Toxics Report 7,105 7,105 0 197 7,105 0 7,105 0 7,105 0 7,105 7,105 ALTA Survey 50,000 50,000 0 1,389 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 Special Inspections/Testing 59,566 59,566 0 1,655 59,566 0 59,566 0 59,566 0 59,566 59,566 LEED / HERS Rater 72,160 72,160 0 2,004 72,160 0 72,160 0 72,160 0 72,160 72,160 3rd Party Construction Manager 200,000 200,000 0 5,556 200,000 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 200,000 200,000 0 Consultant: Other 28,500 28,500 0 792 28,500 0 28,500 0 28,500 0 28,500 28,500 Local Development Impact Fees 782,868 781,496 1,372 21,746 782,868 0 782,868 0 782,868 0 782,868 782,868 Local Permits/Fees 443,200 443,200 0 12,311 443,200 0 443,200 0 443,200 0 443,200 443,200 Utilty Connection Fees/Dry Utility Consultant 332,457 332,457 0 9,235 332,457 0 332,457 0 332,457 0 332,457 332,457 0 Real Estate Taxes During Const 9,585 9,585 0 266 9,585 0 9,585 0 0 9,585 0 0 9,585 9,585 Insurance During Const 167,502 306,395 (138,893) 4,653 167,502 0 167,502 0 0 167,502 0 0 167,502 167,502 0 Appraisal 3,013 3,013 0 84 3,013 0 3,013 0 0 3,013 0 3,013 3,013 Market Study 7,105 7,105 0 197 7,105 0 7,105 0 0 0 0
Partnership Formation + Taxes 17,025 17,025 0 473 17,025 0 17,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tribal Monitoring Fee 50,000 50,000 0 1,389 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 City of Coachella CFD 7,775,431 6,302,772 0 215,984 7,775,431 0 0 0 7,775,431 0 0 0 0 Soft Cost Contingency 380,435 448,235 (67,800) 10,568 380,435 0 380,435 0 380,435 0 380,435 380,435 Predev. Loan Interest/Fees 106,579 106,579 0 2,961 106,579 0 106,579 0 106,579 0 0 106,579 106,579 Construction Loan Interest 2,067,748 2,020,998 46,750 57,437 2,067,748 0 1,285,842 0 781,906 1,285,842 0 0 1,285,842 1,285,842 0 Accrued Interest - HACR RDA Loan 132,591 21,378 111,213 3,683 132,591 0 109,204 0 23,386 109,204 0 109,204 109,204 Accrued Interest - City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 286,595 232,314 54,281 7,961 286,595 0 177,904 0 108,690 177,904 0 177,904 177,904 Title/Recording/Escrow - Construction 36,711 36,711 0 1,020 36,711 0 36,711 0 36,711 0 0 36,711 36,711 Title/Recording/Escrow - Permanent 15,000 15,000 0 417 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 Legal (Owner): Construction Closing 33,972 30,789 3,183 944 33,972 0 33,972 0 33,972 0 0 33,972 33,972 Permanent Closing 10,000 10,000 0 278 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 Organization of Ptnshp 15,000 15,000 0 417 15,000 0 15,000 0 Syndication - GP 15,000 15,000 0 417 15,000 0 15,000 0
Syndication - LP 90,000 50,000 40,000 2,500 90,000 0 90,000 0 Syndication Consulting 87,500 87,500 0 2,431 87,500 0 87,500 0 0 5,000 Audit/Cost Certification 43,209 43,209 0 1,200 43,209 0 43,209 0 TCAC Application/Res/Monitoring Fee 110,584 112,208 (1,624) 3,072 110,584 0 110,584 25,200 Marketing 45,421 45,421 0 1,262 45,421 0 45,421 0
Furnishings Not in Contract 221,053 221,053 0 6,140 221,053 0 221,053 0 221,053 0 221,053 Rent Up Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capitalized Operating Reserve (3 mos.) 136,420 132,342 4,078 3,789 136,420 0 136,420 136,420 Developer Fee 1,640,000 1,640,000 0 45,556 1,640,000 0 1,640,000 0 1,640,000 0 504,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 0

FINANCING FEES
Construction Lender Origination Fee 154,983 161,727 (6,745) 4,305 154,983 0 75,504 0 79,478 75,504 0 75,504 75,504 Construction Lender Expenses 65,000 45,000 20,000 1,806 65,000 0 31,667 0 33,333 31,667 0 31,667 31,667 Construction Lender Counsel 70,000 65,000 5,000 1,944 70,000 0 34,103 0 35,897 34,103 0 34,103 34,103 Permanent Lender Expenses 96,554 10,000 86,554 2,682 96,554 0 0 0 96,554 0 0 0 0 Permanent Lender Counsel 75,000 15,000 60,000 2,083 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 Permanent Loan Origination Fee 21,230 22,420 (1,190) 590 21,230 0 0 0 21,230 0 0 0 0 Subtotal - Financing/Costs of Issuance 482,766 319,147 163,619 13,410 482,766 0 0 141,274 0 0 341,493 141,274 0 0 141,274 141,274 0

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 34,192,432 32,459,362 260,411 949,790 34,192,432 0 1,892,000 23,023,207 0 1,002,613 8,274,612 23,023,207 0 695,620 24,569,262 18,807,907 0 TDC Per Unit 949,790 100.00%
TDC Net of accrued interest: 33,773,247
TDC TCAC 33,941,723 33,941,723
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 303 ends

Item 19.

Page 3 ends

Developer Fee Calculation Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

TCAC DEVELOPER FEE LIMITS

ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION COMMERCIAL TOTAL
Eligible Basis less Developer Fee 0 21,383,207 0
Percentage of Basis in Fee 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
Total Developer Fee per Basis Limits 0 3,207,481 0 3,207,481 Developer Fee Cap per Regulations 2,800,000
Net Allowable Total Fee 2,800,000
Base Cash Developer Fee Limit 2,800,000
Large Project Boost 0
BIPOC Boost 0
Total Base Cash Fee Limit 2,800,000
Net Allowable Total Fee 2,800,000
Net Allowable Cash Fee 2,800,000
Fee Included in TCAC Application 0

OTHER APPLICABLE FEE LIMITS

CASH FEE LIMIT PRIORITY DDF LIMIT TOTAL FEE LIMIT
Fee Limit per HCD 2,200,000 760,000 2,200,000
Fee Limit per TCAC Hybrid Fee 1,640,000 200,000 1,640,000

MOST RESTRICTIVE FEE LIMITS
Total Developer Fee Limit 1,640,000
Total Cash Fee Limit 1,640,000
Total Priority Deferred Fee Limit 200,000

ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPER FEE

ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
Pct. of Potential Fee per Basis Limits 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% Allocation of Total Developer Fee 0 1,640,000 1,640,000

CASH DEVELOPER FEE BREAKOUT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Total Developer Fee 1,640,000
Total Cash Fee Paid 1,440,000
AMOUNT % OF CASH FEE % OF TOTAL FEE
Construction Close 432,000 30.00% 26.34%
Completion (TCO/CO) 504,000 35.00% 30.73%
Conversion 443,930 30.83% 27.07%
Final LP Pay-in 1 60,070 4.17% 3.66%
Total Cash Fee 1,440,000
Plus: Priority Developer Fee 200,000 12.20%
Plus: Non-Priority DDF 0 0.00%
Plus: GP Capital 0 0.00%
Total Developer Fee 1,640,000
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 304 ends

Item 19.

Page 4 ends

Unit Mix & Rental Income Version: 6.03 Closing Projections UTILITY ALLOWANCES 0BR 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR
AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY FOR Villa Verde 9PCT - 105 132 158 - - LIHTC UNITS (% of Median) 44.86%
9% TCAC INCOME TARGETING PTS: 50.00
RENT LIMITS AS OF YEAR: 2025

RESIDENTIAL INCOME
LIHTC - Tier 1 Villa Verde 9PCT TCAC 30% AMI % of Units: 11.43% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 2 808 30.0% 755 623 623 1,246 14,952 2 2,079 1,456 2,912 34,944 49,896 3BR 2 1,015 30.0% 873 715 715 1,430 17,160 0 2,819 2,104 0 0 17,160 TOTAL 4 2,676 32,112 2 2,912 34,944 67,056
LIHTC - Tier 2 Villa Verde 9PCT TCAC 40% AMI % of Units: 28.57% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 5 808 40.0% 1,007 875 875 4,375 52,500 5 2,079 1,204 6,020 72,240 124,740 3BR 5 1,015 40.0% 1,164 1,006 1,006 5,030 60,360 0 2,819 1,813 0 0 60,360 TOTAL 10 9,405 112,860 5 6,020 72,240 185,100
0 LIHTC - Tier 3 Villa Verde 9PCT TCAC 50% AMI % of Units: 60.00% Section 8 SUBSIDIZED Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Quantity of
Subsidized
Units
Per Unit
Net
Subsidy
Rents
Per Unit
Subsidy
Increment
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Income
2BR 8 808 50.0% 1,258 1,126 1,126 9,008 108,096 2 2,079 953 1,906 22,872 130,968 3BR 13 1,015 50.0% 1,455 1,297 1,297 16,861 202,332 0 2,819 1,522 0 0 202,332 TOTAL 21 25,869 310,428 2 1,906 22,872 333,300
Staff Units - Site 1 Villa Verde 9PCT
Unit
Type Quantity
Unit Floor
Area
Actual
Rent
TCAC
AMI %
Actual Rent
Other AMI
%
Per Unit
Monthly
Gross Rent
Per Unit
Regulatory
Net Rent
Per Unit
Actual Net
Rent
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
2BR 1 808 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 0

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL INCOME
Quantity
Total
Monthly
Net Rent
Total
Annual Net
Rent
Monthly
Section 8
Income
Annual
Section 8
Income
Monthly
NA Income
Annual NA
Income
Monthly
Test C
Income
Annual
Test C
Income
Monthly
Test D
Income
Annual
Test D
Income
Grand
Total
Income
Total Floor
Area
LIHTC 35 37,950 455,400 10,838 130,056 0 0 0 0 0 0 585,456 32,420 Non-LIHTC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Staff Units 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 808
TOTAL 36 37,950 455,400 10,838 130,056 0 0 0 0 0 0 585,456 33,228

MISCELLANEOUS INCOME SUBSIDIZED UNIT MIX SUMMARY
Per Unit Per Month Monthly Total Annual Total
Laundry / Vending 9.50 342 4,104
Other 0.00 0 0
1BR 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 9.50 342 4,104 2BR 9 0 0 0 7 16
3BR 0 0 0 0 20 20
TOTAL 9 0 0 0 27 36

TOTAL ALL TYPES
Unit
Type
Villa Verde
9PCT Test 2 Test 3 0 0
2BR 16 0 0 0 0
3BR 20 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 36 0 0 0 0
Villa Verde 9PCT
Total Units
Units
Without
Subsidy
Units With
Test D
Units With
Test C
Units With
NA
Units With
Unit Type Section 8

Page 305 ends

Item 19.

Page 5 ends

Calculation of Tax Credits Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

FEDERAL CALIFORNIA

CONST/ CONST/

ACQUISITION REHAB TOTAL ACQUISITION REHAB TOTAL

TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 Less:
50% Energy Investment Tax Credit (Res. Portion) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Tax Credit (Res. Portion) 0 0 0 0
Non-Eligible Federal Financing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Eligible Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soft Loan Basis Deduction 0 0 0 0 0 0
Voluntary Reduction for Tie-Breaker 0 0 0 0 0 0

ELIGIBLE BASIS 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 Threshold Basis Limit 23,346,708
TBL: Exclude GP Cap/DDF for 4%/State 0
REQUESTED UNADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS (For Tiebreaker) 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 HIGH COST ADJUSTMENT (Y or N) N 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,025
ADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 APPLICABLE FRACTION* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

QUALIFIED CREDIT BASIS 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 CREDIT RATE (TCAC UNDERWRITING) Total State 0.00% 30.00% Annual Federal / Yr 1-3 State 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00%
Yr 4 State 3.00% 3.00%
MAX. POTENTIAL FEDERAL CREDIT (No Vol Basic Reduct/Actual Rate) Credit Rates 9.00% 9.00%
Potential Credit 0 2,072,089 2,072,089
Credit Rate Locked? YES
Jan-24
MAX. CREDIT AMOUNT PER TCAC UNDERWRITING
Annual Federal / Yr 1 State 0 2,072,089 2,072,089 0 2,072,089 2,072,089 Yr 2 State 0 2,072,089 2,072,089
Yr 3 State 0 2,072,089 2,072,089
Yr 4 State 0 690,696 690,696
Total 0 6,906,962 6,906,962

REQUESTED TOTAL STATE CREDIT AMOUNT N/A N/A N/A
MAX ANNUAL CREDITS PER GEOGRAPHIC REGION - BLENDED (x 125%) 3,620,283 Federal/State Proration 2,500,000 0 11,202,830 11,202,830 MAX ANNUAL FEDERAL PER PROJECT/STATE PER UNIT ALLOCATION 2,500,000 N/A

ACTUAL TCAC CREDIT RESERVATION
Annual Federal / Total State N/A N/A 2,112,698 0 7,042,327 7,042,327 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CREDITS (Lesser of above)
Annual Federal / Total State 0 2,072,089 2,072,089 0 6,906,962 6,906,962 UNADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS AT MAX CREDIT AMOUNT 0 23,023,211 23,023,211 0 23,023,207 23,023,207 UNADJUSTED BASIS EXCLUDED AT MAX CREDIT AMOUNT (0) (4) (4) 0 0 0 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE - TEN YEAR TOTAL 20,720,890 6,906,962 TOTAL STATE + FEDERAL LIHTC AMOUNTS - 10 YEARS
Total Federal + State 27,627,852 Blended Credit Request: 2,762,785 General Partner Share 0.01% 2,763 Est. 125% Target for Inland Empire: 3,620,283 Limited Partner Share 99.99% 27,625,089 Credit Request Under / (Over) Geographic Region: 857,498 FIRST YEAR CREDIT CALCULATION (Federal)
Actual Basis Method? Y Acquisition Rehab/NC "A" Bldgs: Acq Rehab/NC "B" Bldgs: Acq Rehab/NC Maximum Potential Federal Credit w/ Actual Basis-Annual 0 2,072,089 0 2,072,089 0 0 Wgt Avg Lease-up (from Page 7) 97.1% 97.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Maximum Potential Prorated Credit w/ Actual Basis 0 2,012,886 0 0 TCAC Credit Reservation-Annual 0 2,072,089 0 2,072,089 0 0 First Year Credit (Lesser of Above) 0 2,012,886 0 0
ENERGY TAX CREDIT CALCULATION *APPLICABLE FRACTION
Total PV Hard Costs 0 Number of Total
Related Soft Costs (Eng, Interst, etc.) - Units Fraction Sq Ft Fraction Related Developer Fee - LIHTC 35 100.0000% 32,420 100.0000% Total ITC Depreciable Basis - Non-LIHTC 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% less: Grants/Rebates -
Tax-Exempt Portion 0.01% TOTAL 35 100.0000% 32,420 100.0000% less: Tax-Exempt Portion -
Net Basis for Investment Tax Credit -
Credit Percentage 0.0% Applicable Fraction 100.0000%
(Lesser of Low Income
Total Investment Tax Credit 0 Units or Sq Ft %)
Residential Portion of Credit 0
Total Elig. 45L Costs (per Program Limits) 0 HISTORIC CREDIT CALCULATION Tax-Exempt Portion 0.01%
less: Tax-Exempt Portion - Total Depreciable Basis 23,023,207 Net Basis for 45L Tax Credit - less: Historic Acquisition Basis 0 Credit Percentage 0.0% less: Site Work 2,293,868
less: Personal Property 1,921,432
Total 45L Tax Credit 0 Basis for Historic Credit (p. 1a, right column) 18,807,907 Residential Portion of Credit 0 % Project SF Historic: 76.80% Basis for HTC (Adjusted by SF): 14,445,397
Tax-Exempt Use Portion 0.01%
(Less Tax-Exempt Use Portion) (1,445)
Basis for Historic Credit (p. 1a, right column) 14,443,953 Credit Percentage 0.0%
Res. Portion of Historic Basis (cost cert) 14,443,953
Perentage related to Residential 100.0%
Total Historic Credit 0
Res. Portion of Historic Credit 0
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 306 ends

Item 19.

Page 6 ends

Base Year Income & Expense Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

INCOME
Scheduled Gross Income - Residential 455,400
Total Gross Subsidy Income - Section 8 130,056
Misc. Income 4,104
Vacancy Loss - Residential 6.5% (29,868)
Vacancy Loss - Section 8 6.5% (8,454)
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 551,239

EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL
Administrative
Advertising 355
Legal 1,066
Accounting/Audit 12,302
Security 28,421
Other: Misc. Admin 11,005
Total Administrative 53,149
Management Fee 31,500
Utilities
Fuel 0
Gas 0
Electricity 13,547
Water/Sewer 29,027
Resident Internet Services 0
Total Utilities 42,574
Payroll/Payroll Taxes
On-Site Manager/Office Admin 26,879
Maintenance Payroll 24,362
Payroll Taxes/Benefits 28,031
Total Payroll/Payroll Taxes 79,272
Insurance 70,092
Maintenance
Painting 947
Repairs 9,450
Trash Removal 17,763
Exterminating 3,553
Grounds 5,921
Elevator 0
Fire Protection/HVAC/Contracts/Misc. Repairs 24,937
Total Maintenance 62,571
Other
0 Misc. Tax/License 5,000
Total Other 5,000
Resident Services
Tenant Services 4,737
0 Total Resident Services 4,737
Replacement Reserve 18,000
Real Estate Taxes 3,553
TOTAL EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL 370,448
Per Unit Per Annum (incl. Reserves) 10,290
Per Unit Per Annum (w/o taxes/res/svc)) 9,560
TCAC Minimum (w/o taxes/res/svc) 4,500
TOTAL EXPENSES - COMMERCIAL 0
NET AVAILABLE INCOME 180,791
Annual Soft Loan Fees:

Less: City CFD Monitoring Fee 0
ADJUSTED NET AVAILABLE INCOME: TOTAL 180,791
TOTAL MANDATORY SOFT DEBT PAYMENTS 0
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.15
AVAILABLE FOR SENIOR DEBT SERVICE (NET OF OP SUBSIDY) 51,468 Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 307 ends

Item 19.

Page 7 ends

Mortgage Calculation/Bond Ratios Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

TRANCHE A
Uses baseline year NOI; includes annual fees
Financing Type: Key Bank Taxable Permanent Loan
Underwriting Maximum
Constraint Loan Amount
Rate: 6.940%
Debt Service Coverage 1.15 2,123,033 Amortization (mos): 480 Lender Commitment NA NOI for DS: 180,791
Max PMT @ DSCR: 157,209
MAXIMUM MORTGAGE 2,123,033 Annual Fees: 0
Annual DS Payment: 157,209
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 308 ends

Item 19.

Page 8 ends

Lease-Up / Placed-in-Service Schedule Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

SCHEDULE
Dates
Months to
Milestone
Cumulative
Months
Start of Construction April 1, 2026 0 0 Partnership Closing Mid-April Completion November 1, 2027 19 19
100% Occupancy March 1, 2028 4 23
Conversion November 1, 2028 8 31
Form(s) 8609 April 1, 2029 5 36
LIHTC SCHEDULE LIHTC SCHEDULE -- 2/3 CREDITS OPERATIONS SCHEDULE SINGLE BUILDING / MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP A SINGLE BLDG / MULTIPLE BLDGS - GROUP A YEAR 0 1st Tax Credit Year: 2028 1st Tax Credit Year (2/3 Units): 2029 2027 Total # Units: 35
Completed Lease Up by Month
Total QO Total Vacated Cumulative Cumulative Month No. Units Percent Month No. Units Percent Month by Month by Month Occupancy Occupancy % Jan-29 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0.0% Jan-28 23 0 23 65.71% Feb-29 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0.0%
Feb-28 12 0 35 100.00% Mar-29 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0.0%
Mar-28 0 0 35 100.00% Apr-29 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0.0%
Apr-28 0 0 35 100.00% May-29 0 0.0% May-27 0 0.0%
May-28 0 0 35 100.00% Jun-29 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0.0%
Jun-28 0 0 35 100.00% Jul-29 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0.0%
Jul-28 0 0 35 100.00% Aug-29 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0.0%
Aug-28 0 0 35 100.00% Sep-29 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0.0%
Sep-28 0 0 35 100.00% Oct-29 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0.0%
Oct-28 0 0 35 100.00% Nov-29 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0.0%
Nov-28 0 0 35 100.00% Dec-29 0 0.0% Dec-27 12 33.3%
Dec-28 0 0 35 100.00% Total 0 0.0% Total 12 33.3%
1st Year Occupancy: 2028 97.14% Total Avg % Qual. Occ. 0.0% Total % Operating in First Year 2.78% MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP B MULTIPLE BUILDINGS - GROUP B YEAR 1 (cumulative) 2028 1st Tax Credit Year: 2029 1st Tax Credit Year (2/3 Units): 2030 Total # Units: 0
Total QO Total Vacated Cumulative Cumulative Month No. Units Percent Month No. Units Percent Month by Month by Month Occupancy Occupancy % Jan-30 0 0.0% Jan-28 23 63.9% Jan-29 0 0 0 0.00% Feb-30 0 0.0% Feb-28 12 33.3%
Feb-29 0 0 0 0.00% Mar-30 0 0.0% Mar-28 0 0.0%
Mar-29 0 0 0 0.00% Apr-30 0 0.0% Apr-28 0 0.0%
Apr-29 0 0 0 0.00% May-30 0 0.0% May-28 0 0.0%
May-29 0 0 0 0.00% Jun-30 0 0.0% Jun-28 0 0.0%
Jun-29 0 0 0 0.00% Jul-30 0 0.0% Jul-28 0 0.0%
Jul-29 0 0 0 0.00% Aug-30 0 0.0% Aug-28 0 0.0%
Aug-29 0 0 0 0.00% Sep-30 0 0.0% Sep-28 0 0.0%
Sep-29 0 0 0 0.00% Oct-30 0 0.0% Oct-28 0 0.0%
Oct-29 0 0 0 0.00% Nov-30 0 0.0% Nov-28 0 0.0%
Nov-29 0 0 0 0.00% Dec-30 0 0.0% Dec-28 0 0.0%
Dec-29 0 0 0 0.00% Total 0 0.0% Total 35 97.2%
1st Year Occupancy: 2029 0.00% Total Avg % Qual. Occ. 0.0% Total % Operating in 2nd Year 94.4% PIS SCHEDULE FOR ACQ BASIS DEPRECIATION PIS SCHEDULE FOR REHAB/NC BASIS DEPRECIATION PIS SCHEDULE FOR SITEWORK/PERS. PROP. DEPRECIATION YEAR 0 YEAR 1 YEAR 1
Mid-Month Convention 2027 Mid-Month Convention 2027 Mid-Quarter Convention 2027 Bldg. PIS by Month Bldg. PIS by Month Bldg. PIS by Month Month No. Units Dep. Percent Month Building No. No. Units Percent Month Building No. No. Units Percent Jan-27 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0 0.0% Jan-27 0 0 0.0%
Feb-27 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0 0.0% Feb-27 0 0 0.0%
Mar-27 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0 0.0% Mar-27 0 0 0.0%
Apr-27 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0 0.0% Apr-27 0 0 0.0%
May-27 0 0.0% May-27 0 0 0.0% May-27 0 0 0.0%
Jun-27 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0 0.0% Jun-27 0 0 0.0%
Jul-27 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0 0.0% Jul-27 0 0 0.0%
Aug-27 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0 0.0% Aug-27 0 0 0.0%
Sep-27 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0 0.0% Sep-27 0 0 0.0%
Oct-27 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0 0.0% Oct-27 0 0 0.0%
Nov-27 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0 0.0% Nov-27 0 0 4.2%
Dec-27 0 0.0% Dec-27 7 36 4.2% Dec-27 7 36 8.3%
TOTAL 0 0.0% TOTAL 36 4.2% TOTAL 36 12.5%
Total Avg % PIS Y1 0.0% Total Avg % PIS Y1 4.2% Total Avg % PIS Y1 12.5% YEAR 2 (cumulative) YEAR 2 (cumulative) YEAR 2 (non-cumulative) Jan-28 0 0.0% Jan-28 0 36 8.3% Jan-28 0 0 8.3%
Feb-28 0 0.0% Feb-28 0 36 8.3% Feb-28 0 0 8.3%
Mar-28 0 0.0% Mar-28 0 36 8.3% Mar-28 0 0 8.3%
Apr-28 0 0.0% Apr-28 0 36 8.3% Apr-28 0 0 8.3%
May-28 0 0.0% May-28 0 36 8.3% May-28 0 0 8.3%
Jun-28 0 0.0% Jun-28 0 36 8.3% Jun-28 0 0 8.3%
Jul-28 0 0.0% Jul-28 0 36 8.3% Jul-28 0 0 8.3%
Aug-28 0 0.0% Aug-28 0 36 8.3% Aug-28 0 0 8.3%
Sep-28 0 0.0% Sep-28 0 36 8.3% Sep-28 0 0 8.3%
Oct-28 0 0.0% Oct-28 0 36 8.3% Oct-28 0 0 8.3%
Nov-28 0 0.0% Nov-28 0 36 8.3% Nov-28 0 0 8.3%
Dec-28 0 0.0% Dec-28 0 36 8.3% Dec-28 0 0 8.3%
TOTAL 0 0.0% TOTAL 36 100.0% TOTAL 0 100.0%
Total Avg % PIS Y2 0.0% Total Avg % PIS Y2 100.0% Total Avg % PIS Y2 100.0% Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 309 ends

Item 19.

Page 9 ends

Calculation of Net Syndication Proceeds Version: 6.03 Closing Projections As of Closing
Total Federal Credit (10 yr) & State Credit 20,720,890 0 Total Federal Credit 20,720,890 0
Total State Credit 0 0
Gross Proceeds (Total) 17,353,798 0
Gross Proceeds - Federal Credit 16,937,634 0
Gross Proceeds - State Credit 0 0
Gross Proceeds (net of Energy/Historic Credit Proceeds) 17,353,798 0 Less: LP Syndication Costs
Attorney 120,000
Accountant 43,209
Consulting 87,500
Other:

Total Syndication Costs 250,709 0
Total Syndication Costs/Gross Proceeds 1.44% (Syndication Load) 0.00000% Net Proceeds 17,103,089 0
Net Proceeds/Total Fed and State Credit 0.825403 tax credit price 0.00000 Gross Proceeds (Total)/Total Fed and State Credit 0.837503 tax credit price 0.00000 Gross Proceeds - Federal/State Disaggregated
Federal 0.817500 tax credit price 1.00000
State 0.850000 tax credit price 0.70000
Net Proceeds - Federal/State Disaggregated
Federal 0.805609 tax credit price 0.00000
State - tax credit price 0.00000
Certficated State Credits
Total State Credit Certificates 6,906,962
Gross Proceeds from Certificated Credits 5,870,918
Gross Proceeds/Certificated Credit 0.85000
Total Equity
Gross Proceeds from LIHTC 17,353,798
Gross Proceeds from Energy Credits 0
Gross Proceeds from Historic Credit 0
Total Equity 17,353,798
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 310 ends

Item 19.

Page 10 ends

TCAC Calculations & Scoring Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

THRESHOLD BASIS LIMIT
County: Riverside TCAC Project #:
9% or 4% credits: 9% CDLAC Project #:

Year: 2025
Base Limits for Geographic Region Threshold Basis Limit for This Project Per Unit
Unit Type 9% 4% Unit Type # Units Basis Limit Total
0 BR 324,988 324,988 0 BR 0 324,988 0
1 BR 374,708 374,708 1 BR 0 374,708 0
2 BR 452,000 452,000 2 BR 16 452,000 7,232,000
3 BR 578,560 578,560 3 BR 20 578,560 11,571,200
4 BR 644,552 644,552 4 BR 0 644,552 0
5 BR 644,552 644,552 5 BR 0 644,552 0
36 18,803,200
Energy/Resource Efficiency Boosts Additional Basis Adjustments Boost for Prevailing Wage 20.0% 3,760,640
Renewables (50% tot./90% area) 0% Boost for Project Labor Agreement 0.0% 0 Renewables (75% CA/90% area) 0% Boost for Parking beneath Units 0.0% 0 Title 24 + 15% 0% Boost for Childcare 0.0% 0
Post-rehab improvement > 80% 0% Boost for 100% Special Needs 0.0% 0 Greywater landscaping 0% Boost for elevator service 0.0% 0 Community gardens > 60 s.f. 0% Boost for Type I construction 0.0% 0 Natural flooring kitchens 0% Boost for Type III construction 0.0% 0 Natural flooring common area 0% Subtotal Basic Boosts 20.0% 3,760,640 EPA Indoor Air Plus Program met 0% Boost for Energy / Resource Efficiency 0.0% 0 Toxic/Seismic Abatement Costs 0.0% 0
Local Development Impact Fees 782,868
Subtotal Efficiency (Max 10%) 0% High Opportunity Area 0.0% 0 BONDS: Boost for units ≤ 50% AMI (excl. CA credit project) 0.0% 0 BONDS: Boost for units ≤ 35% AMI (excl. CA credit project) 0.0% 0 Total Threshold Basis Limit Boosts 4,543,508
Total Threshold Basis Limit 23,346,708
Potential Eligible Basis 23,023,207
Eligible Basis Surplus/(Deficit) 323,501

TCAC HIGH COST TEST
Federal Credit CA State Credit HCD 2017 UMR
Total Eligible Basis 23,023,207 23,023,207 23,023,207
Total Adjusted TBL 23,346,708 23,346,708 23,346,708
Percentage of ATBL 98.61% 98.61% 98.61%
Amount Over/(Under) 130% Limit (160% Limit for HCD) (7,327,513) (7,327,513) (14,331,526)

TCAC POINTS
Lowest Income Points
Rural Project? N
Number of Percent of Percentage of Percent of Income Points Earned Targeted Tax Area Median Units to Total Targeted Units to Credit Units Income (AMI) Units Total Tax Credit
(30% - 55%) (before rounding Units (exclusive
down) of mgr units)
0 20 0.00 0 0
4 30 11.43 10 15
0 35 0.00 0 0
10 40 28.57 25 25
0 45 0.00 0 0
21 50 60.00 40 20
0 50 0.00 0 0 Rural Projects Only
0 55 0.00 0 0 Rural Projects Only
35 Total Lowest Income Points (No Cap) 60
Total Lowest Income Actual Points 50
Lowest Income Bonus Points Total @ 30% AMI Required for Points 4 Bedroom
Selection
Total Number of
Tax Credit Units
per Bedroom Size
Number of
Targeted Tax
Credit Units @
30% AMI
Percentage of
Units to Total
Units (by bedroom
size) 10% by Unit Type
Minimum Units
Required at /
below 30% AMI
5 BR 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Pass
4 BR 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Pass
3 BR 20 2 0.1000 2.0000 2.0000 Pass
2 BR 15 2 0.1333 2.0000 2.0000 Pass
1 BR 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Pass
SRO 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Pass
Total 35 4
Total Lowest Income Bonus Points 2

TCAC TIEBREAKER
Leveraged Soft Resources
Committed Eligible Public Soft Funds (9% + 4%) 41,013,097 Net of Accrued Interest Value of Donated Land / Fee Waiver 0
Value of Committed Rental Subsidy Leveraging 1,210,773
Less: Non Project-Specific Offsite Work (15,750)
Less: Purchase Price in Excess of Appraisal 0
Residential Percentage of TDC 100.00%
Subtotal Residential Eligible Public Funds 42,208,120
* Percentage Large Project Boost (9% + 4%) 150.00%
Adjusted Residential Eligible Public Funds 63,312,179
Residential Total Costs of Development 115,121,447 Net of Syndication Costs Ratio of Leveraged Soft Resources / TDC 55.00% and offsites Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis
Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis 23,023,211
Residential Total Costs of Development (9% + 4%) 115,121,447 Net of Syndication Costs Ratio of Basis/TDC 20.00% and offsites
Inverse of Ratio Divided by 2 40.00%
Base Tiebreaker Score 95.00%
High Opportunity Boost 0.00%
Total Tiebreaker Score 95.00%
Tiebreaker at Application 95.00%
Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 311 ends

Item 19.

Page 11 ends

15-Year Cash Flow Version: 6.03 Closing Projections

Management Fee 3.5% 0 875 29,779 32,634 33,776 34,959 36,182 37,448 38,759 40,116 41,520 42,973 44,477 46,034 47,645 49,313 51,038 52,825 54,674 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 9,790 333,149 363,486 374,554 385,959 397,713 409,825 422,307 435,170 448,426 462,086 476,164 490,671 505,621 521,028 536,906 553,268 570,130 Total Expenses - Residential 3.0% 0 9,790 333,149 363,486 374,554 385,959 397,713 409,825 422,307 435,170 448,426 462,086 476,164 490,671 505,621 521,028 536,906 553,268 570,130 NET OPERATING INCOME 0 5,522 187,754 199,090 199,273 199,344 199,297 199,125 198,822 198,381 197,797 197,061 196,166 195,106 193,871 192,454 190,846 189,039 187,023 REPLACEMENT RESERVE 18,000 0 500 17,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 City CFD Monitoring Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NET REMAINING INCOME 0 5,022 170,754 181,090 181,273 181,344 181,297 181,125 180,822 180,381 179,797 179,061 178,166 177,106 175,871 174,454 172,846 171,039 169,023

PERM LOAN - TRANCHE A
Principal Balance (Ending) 2,123,000 0 0 2,122,177 2,111,928 2,100,944 2,089,173 2,076,558 2,063,040 2,048,553 2,033,028 2,016,391 1,998,562 1,979,455 1,958,980 1,937,037 1,913,522 1,888,322 1,861,316 1,832,376 Series A Bond P&I 157,207 0 0 13,101 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 Interest Payment 0 0 12,278 146,957 146,223 145,436 144,592 143,689 142,720 141,682 140,570 139,378 138,100 136,731 135,264 133,692 132,007 130,201 128,266 Principal Payment 0 0 823 10,250 10,984 11,771 12,614 13,518 14,487 15,525 16,637 17,829 19,107 20,476 21,943 23,515 25,200 27,006 28,940 TOTAL SERIES A DEBT SERVICE 0 0 13,101 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 157,207 NET CASH FLOW 0 5,022 157,654 23,883 24,067 24,138 24,090 23,918 23,615 23,175 22,590 21,854 20,960 19,899 18,664 17,247 15,639 13,832 11,816 CASH FLOW (RESERVED)/RELEASED FOR CONVERSION 0 (5,022) 5,022 0 0 0 0 0 Remaining Net Cash Flow 0 0 162,676 23,883 24,067 24,138 24,090 23,918 23,615 23,175 22,590 21,854 20,960 19,899 18,664 17,247 15,639 13,832 11,816 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (All Debt) N/A N/A 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.08 TCAC NET CASH FLOW TESTS:

Percent Gross Revenue N/A 30.67% 4.00% 3.97% 3.92% 3.86% 3.77% 3.67% 3.55% 3.42% 3.27% 3.10% 2.91% 2.71% 2.49% 2.26% 2.01% 1.74% 1.46% 25% Debt Service Test N/A N/A 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.35% 15.32% 15.21% 15.02% 14.74% 14.37% 13.90% 13.33% 12.66% 11.87% 10.97% 9.95% 8.80% 7.52% Alternative:

Year 15 Test - Greater of: (a) 2% Gross Income OR (b) lesser of $25,000 or $500/unit 18,000

0.00 DISTRIBUTION OF CASH FLOW
LP Asset Mgt. Fee Annual Amt: 5,000 0 0 833 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 6,921 7,129 7,343 7,563 7,790 8,024 Inflator: 3.00%
GP Partnership Mgt. Fee Annual Amt: 34,504 0 0 5,751 18,733 18,762 18,674 18,463 18,122 17,645 17,025 16,256 15,330 14,240 12,978 11,535 9,904 8,076 6,042 3,792 Inflator: 3.00%
Priority Def. Developer Fee Annual Amt: 200,000 0 0 156,092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DDF Note Interest Rate: 0.00%
Residual Receipts Loans Total % 50.00%
HACR RDA Loan 5.47% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Coachella CFD (Capitalized) 94.53% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General Partner 0.01% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited Partner 99.99% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Cumulative to GP: 0 0 167,092 51,178 52,180 53,095 53,916 54,639 55,257 55,766 56,159 56,431 56,573 56,581 56,447 56,163 55,723 55,118 54,341 TOTAL Cumulative to LP: 0 0 833 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 6,921 7,129 7,343 7,563 7,790 8,024 Maximum Net Cash Flow to GP: 90% 0 0 8,333 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964 59,703 61,494 63,339 65,239 67,196 69,212 71,288 73,427 75,629 77,898 80,235 Excess Distributions to GP: 0 0 158,759 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Villa Verde 9PCT

Page 312 ends

Item 19.

April 15, 2025
5 th Street Senior Apartments
Coachella, CA 92236
Subject: CFO Loan Commitment

CITY OF COACHELLA
53990 ENTERPRISE WAY, COACHELLA, CA 92236
(760) 398-3502 • WWW.COACHELLA.ORG
To Whom It May Concern:

The City Council of the City of Coachella, by Resolution No. 2005-93, authorized the creation of the City of Coachella Community Facilities District 2005-l(the "CFO") and, by Resolution No. 202394 authorized the levy of a special tax for properties within the CFO (the "Special Assessment"), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended.

Chelsea Investment Corporation ("Developer") has obtained site control for a proposed low income housing project with the intention of constructing a 53-unit affordable multifamily development with 4,742 square feet of commercial space, carports and related improvements known as the 5 th Street
Senior Apartments (the "Project") with expected entitlement in the name of a new entity to be formed conducive to the type of project contemplated ("to be formed entity"). The project includes properties with APNs 778-113-001 and 778-113-002.

The City agrees to enter into a conditional affordable housing loan commitment wherein the City agrees to loan 6th Street Seniors CIC, LP funds for the prepayment of special assessments under the following terms:

1. Loan Amount - $8,290,440.63 *

2. Loan Term - 55 years.

3. Interest- 3% simple per annum**.

4. Repayment - in full at end of loan term, sale or refinance.

5. Annual Payments - 50% of residual cash flow***.
*Based on CFO amount for fiscal year 24/25 of $1,555.55 presuming 2% average annual CIP increases.

Agreement amount to be updated to reflect current CFO rate at time of project completion. Special assessments exceeding the loan/prepayment amount within the 55-year term will be included in the applicable year levy.
**Interest will be calculated on the accrued unpaid special assessment balance each year.

Page 313 ends

Item 19.

Page 314 ends

Item 19.

Page 315 ends

Item 19.

Page 316 ends

Item 19.

Page 317 ends

Item 19.

Page 318 ends

Item 19.

Page 319 ends

Item 19.

City of Coachella
Via Verde Apartments - Loan Amount Calculation
Conditional Loan Approval - 06/08/2022
Average CPI A 0.03
Interest 0.02
Units 152.00
21/22 Unit Levy 1,249.40
Year Deferred Assessment Levy Balance Interest Balance
1 195,606.06 195,606.06 3,912.12 199,518.19
2 201,474.25 397,080.31 7,941.61 405,021.92
3 207,518.47 604,598.78 12,091.98 616,690.76
4 213,744.03 818,342.81 16,366.86 834,709.67
5 220,156.35 1,038,499.16 20,769.98 1,059,269.14
6 226,761.04 1,265,260.20 25,305.20 1,290,565.40
7 233,563.87 1,498,824.07 29,976.48 1,528,800.55
8 240,570.79 1,739,394.85 34,787.90 1,774,182.75
9 247,787.91 1,987,182.76 39,743.66 2,026,926.42
10 255,221.55 2,242,404.31 44,848.09 2,287,252.40
11 262,878.19 2,505,282.50 50,105.65 2,555,388.15
12 270,764.54 2,776,047.04 55,520.94 2,831,567.98
13 278,887.48 3,054,934.52 61,098.69 3,116,033.21
14 287,254.10 3,342,188.62 66,843.77 3,409,032.39
15 295,871.72 3,638,060.34 72,761.21 3,710,821.55
16 304,747.87 3,942,808.21 78,856.16 4,021,664.38
17 313,890.31 4,256,698.52 85,133.97 4,341,832.50
18 323,307.02 4,580,005.54 91,600.11 4,671,605.66
19 333,006.23 4,913,011.77 98,260.24 5,011,272.01
20 342,996.42 5,256,008.19 105,120.16 5,361,128.36
21 353,286.31 5,609,294.50 112,185.89 5,721,480.39
22 363,884.90 5,973,179.40 119,463.59 6,092,642.99
23 374,801.45 6,347,980.85 126,959.62 6,474,940.46
24 386,045.49 6,734,026.34 134,680.53 6,868,706.86
25 397,626.85 7,131,653.19 142,633.06 7,274,286.25
26 409,555.66 7,541,208.85 150,824.18 7,692,033.03
27 421,842.33 7,963,051.18 159,261.02 8,122,312.20
28 434,497.60 8,397,548.78 167,950.98 8,565,499.75
29 447,532.53 8,845,081.31 176,901.63 9,021,982.93
30 460,958.50 9,306,039.81 186,120.80 9,492,160.61
31 474,787.26 9,780,827.07 195,616.54 9,976,443.61
32 489,030.88 10,269,857.94 205,397.16 10,475,255.10
33 503,701.80 10,773,559.75 215,471.19 10,989,030.94
34 518,812.86 11,292,372.60 225,847.45 11,518,220.05
35 534,377.24 11,826,749.84 236,535.00 12,063,284.84
36 550,408.56 12,377,158.40 247,543.17 12,624,701.57
37 566,920.82 12,944,079.22 258,881.58 13,202,960.80

Page 320 ends

Item 19.
38 583,928.44 13,528,007.66 270,560.15 13,798,567.81
39 601,446.29 14,129,453.95 282,589.08 14,412,043.03
40 619,489.68 14,748,943.64 294,978.87 15,043,922.51
41 638,074.37 15,387,018.01 307,740.36 15,694,758.37
42 657,216.60 16,044,234.61 320,884.69 16,365,119.31
43 676,933.10 16,721,167.72 334,423.35 17,055,591.07
44 697,241.10 17,418,408.81 348,368.18 17,766,776.99
45 718,158.33 18,136,567.14 362,731.34 18,499,298.48
46 739,703.08 18,876,270.22 377,525.40 19,253,795.62
47 761,894.17 19,638,164.39 392,763.29 20,030,927.68
48 784,751.00 20,422,915.39 408,458.31 20,831,373.69
49 808,293.53 21,231,208.91 424,624.18 21,655,833.09
50 832,542.33 22,063,751.24 441,275.02 22,505,026.27
51 857,518.60 22,921,269.84 458,425.40 23,379,695.24
52 883,244.16 23,804,514.00 476,090.28 24,280,604.28
53 909,741.48 24,714,255.49 494,285.11 25,208,540.60
54 937,033.73 25,651,289.22 513,025.78 26,164,315.00
55 965,144.74 26,616,433.96 532,328.68 27,148,762.64
26,616,433.96
A
This is a projected number. Actual will affect the
total number of years deferred.

Page 321 ends

Item 19.

STAFF REPORT
3/25/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Andrew Simmons, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT:

Resolution 2026-14, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coachella, California authorizing the City Manager or Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute various State and Federal Transportation Program documents required for highway projects, including street Right-of-Way Certifications STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Resolution 2026-14, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coachella, California authorizing the City Manager or Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute various State and Federal Transportation Program documents required for highway projects, including street Rightof-Way Certifications DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City of Coachella has been awarded State funding for Design and Right-of-Way Services for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Connecting Coachella Project ST-138. The State is the administering agency for these funds and is requiring the execution of a Program Supplemental Agreement to the current State Master Agreement. The State is also requiring a certified authorizing resolution that clearly identifies the project and the official authorized to execute the agreements.

The total funds are in the amount of $2,529,412.00, with an amount of $2,150,000 in grant funding and $379,412.00 in local match. It is recommended that a blanket resolution authorizing the City Manager or the Public Works Director/City Engineer to have all project associated agreements executed on the City’s behalf at their discretion be adopted. This will greatly facilitate the processing of future certificates, agreements, reimbursements, or other related paperwork that will be required as the project progresses.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact to budget. The local match for this project is $379,412 has been appropriated in the CIP FY 25/26 budget.

Page 322 ends

Item 20.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2026-14

2. Program Supplement No. 00000A990 to Administering Agency-State Agreement for State Funded Projects No 08-5294S21

Page 323 ends

Item 20.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE

VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS, INCLUDING

STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATIONS
WHEREAS; the City of Coachella is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain Transportation Projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS; Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements and/or Fund Transfer Agreements need to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds could be claimed; and WHEREAS; the City wishes to delegate authorization to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements and Right-of-Way certifications and any amendments thereto with California Department of Transportation to the City Manager or the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of City of Coachella hereby authorizes the City Manager or the Public Works Director/City Engineer to approve, execute and sign State and Federal documents required to receive Federal and/or State Funding for various transportation projects, including but not limited to right-of-way certifications on behalf of the City. Such documents, when duly executed by the City Manager or the Public Works Director/City Engineer, shall be binding upon the City as if separately approved by the City Council.

Page 324 ends

Item 20.

Resolution No. 2026-14

Page 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2026. ___________________________________
Steven A. Hernandez
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Angela M. Zepeda
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney

Page 325 ends

Item 20.

Resolution No. 2026-14

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

CITY OF COACHELLA
)
) ss.
)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-14 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Coachella at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of March 2026, by the following vote of Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Delia Granados
Deputy City Clerk

Page 326 ends

Item 20.
3/3/2026

Page 327 ends

Item 20.

Page 328 ends

Item 20.

Page 329 ends

Item 20.

Page 330 ends

Item 20.
80237.00000\44739300.1 1

STAFF REPORT
3/25/2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kendra Reif, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

SPECIFICS:

Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) Project
A Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 2026-12: Request for Approval of Resolution No. 2026-12, to rescind Resolution No. 2023-71 approved October 10, 2023, and to remove Condition of Approval #75 from the previously approved Condition of Approvals for the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) project located west of Van Buren Street, south of Avenue 50 and north of Avenue 51, APN #’s 779-280-002 and 779-320-001 and certifying that the projects Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration is in compliance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; Applicant: City of Coachella
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2026-12 that rescinds Resolution No. 2023-71 approved on October 10, 2023 and removes Condition of Approval No. 75 prohibiting short term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The purpose of this item is to address a modification to the Condition of Approval to the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) project previously approved on October 30, 2023. If approved, Resolution No. 2026-12 would remove Condition of Approval #75 prohibiting short term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13. All other provision of the previous resolution will remain unmodified. Ordinance No. 1208 that was adopted by the City Council on October 30, 2023 for the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) project is not being considered.

BACKGROUND:

Page 331 ends

Item 21.
80237.00000\44739300.1 2
At a public hearing on October 30, 2023, the City Council considered and approved TTM 38557, CZ No. 22-05, CUP 372, AR 23-13 along with Street Names and the adoption of EA 22-06.

In the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 38557, Conditional Use Permit No. 372, and Architectural Review No. 23-13 Condition of Approval No. 75 that states the following:

No owner shall be permitted to rent or lease such Owner’s Lot for transient or hotel purposes, or for a period of less than thirty (30) days unless permitted by the City two years after the final occupancy permit is issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13.

Staff is requesting this Condition of Approval be removed and is requesting that the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) Project comply with Chapter 5.80 (Regulation of Short-Term Vacation Rentals) of the Coachella Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On March 12, 2025 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1222, which amended portions of the Coachella Municipal Code related to Short-Term Vacation Rentals. The intent of the ordinance was to clarify and update Short-Term Vacation Rental regulations to ensure consistency with local policy objectives.

At the time of the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) project’s approval, a condition of approval was included prohibiting short-term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13 before the adoption of Ordinance No. 1222.

Following adoption of the ordinance, there was miscommunication between City staff and the project developer regarding which regulatory framework would apply to the project. Specifically, the parties operated under differing interpretations as to whether the project would remain subject to the previously adopted conditions of approval or if the development was to transition to the newly adopted ordinance.

This miscommunication resulted in confusion concerning applicable development standards and procedural requirements. Staff has since reviewed the project file, approval timeline, and the effective date of Ordinance No. 1222 and determined that applying the updated ordinance would provide clarity, ensure consistency with current City regulations, and avoid potential conflicts between outdated and newly adopted code provisions.

To eliminate ambiguity and align the project with the City’s current regulatory framework, staff is recommending removal of the existing condition that references the prior condition of approval.

Upon removal of that condition, the project would be governed by the provisions of Ordinance No. 1222 and any applicable sections of the Coachella Municipal Code as currently adopted.

Staff believes this action will promote transparency, ensure consistent application of City regulations, and reduce the likelihood of further procedural misunderstandings as the project moves forward.

Page 332 ends

Item 21.
80237.00000\44739300.1 3
Ordinance No. 1222 establishes a comprehensive permitting and operational framework for Short-Term Vacation Rentals, summarized as follows:

1. Permit Requirement
 All STVR operators must obtain either an Annual Permit or a Seasonal Permit prior to advertising or renting a property.
 Permits are non-transferable and expire upon change of property ownership.  Annual permits are valid for one year and must be renewed.  Seasonal permits allow operation only between March 1 and June 1 of each year.  Permit numbers must be displayed in all advertisements and posted within the rental unit.

2. Neighborhood Cap
 Annual STVR permits are limited to no more than 20 percent of residential units within a designated neighborhood area.
 Once the cap is reached, no additional annual permits may be issued within that neighborhood.

This provision was included to maintain residential integrity and prevent over-concentration of short-term rental activity.

3. Ownership Limits
 An owner may hold no more than five (5) STVR permits at any one time, subject to limited grandfathering provisions for previously approved permits.

4. Operational Standards
 Maximum occupancy limits apply and must be accurately reflected in all listings.  A local contact person must be designated and available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
 The local contact must respond to complaints within 15 minutes by phone and be physically present at the property within 45 minutes, if necessary.  Operators are responsible for ensuring compliance with noise standards, parking regulations, and general nuisance provisions.
 If violations occur and are not corrected, operators must take immediate corrective action, including removal of occupants if necessary.

5. Insurance and Documentation
 Operators must maintain liability insurance coverage as required by the ordinance.  Rental records, complaint logs, and compliance documentation must be retained for a minimum of three years and made available to the City upon request.

Page 333 ends

Item 21.
80237.00000\44739300.1 4

6. Tax Compliance
 All operators must register for and remit Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in accordance with City regulations.
 Operators are required to file TOT returns even during periods in which no rental activity occurred.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to CEQA, an initial study was prepared for the Sevilla II Project. The Initial Study concluded that the project would result in less than significant impacts to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems and Wildfire.

The Initial Study concluded that the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Tribal Cultural Resources.

A 30-day public review period ran from September 5, 2023, to October 5, 2023. Six comment letters were submitted during the comment period. Responses to comments have been prepared for the comments received and are included in Attachment No. 2.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared and is attached in Attachment No. 2.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:

A notice of public hearing to consider the Project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on March 15, 2026, and a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a radius of 300- feet of the subject property on March 10, 2026, pursuant to Section 17.74.010G of the Coachella Municipal Code. At the time of issuance of this staff report, staff had not received public comments on this application.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The removal of Condition of Approval No. 75 would allow for homeowners to participate in the City’s Short-Term Rental Program and would be governed by Ordinance No. 1222. Ordinance No. 1222 supports the collection of Transient Occupancy Tax revenues and establishes enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. Administrative costs are associated with permit processing, monitoring, and enforcement activities.

ALTERNATIVES:

Page 334 ends

Item 21.
80237.00000\44739300.1 5
1) Approve Resolution No. 2026-12 to rescind Resolution No. 2023-71 approved on October 10, 2023 and remove Condition of Approval No. 75 prohibiting short term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13.
2) Deny Resolution No. 2026-12 to rescind Resolution No. 2023-71 approved on October 10, 2023 and remove Condition of Approval No. 75 prohibiting short term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13.
3) Continue this item and provide staff and the applicant with direction.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S):

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Alternative #1 Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2026-12

2. Resolution No. 2023-71 approving TTM No. 38557, CUP No. 372, Street Names and AR No. 23-13 and adopting a mitigated negative declaration for EA 22-06 and the conditions of approval.

Exhibit A - EA 22-06 Response to Comments Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit B – TTM No. 38557
Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval for TTM No. 38557, CUP No. 272 and AR No. 23-13
Exhibit D - DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET - SEVILLA II
Exhibit E – Proposed Street Names

3. Ordinance No, 1208

4. Correspondence

5. Vicinity Map

6. TTM – 38557 Modifications pursuant to Fire Department Requirements

7. TTM 38557 Revised Plotting

8. Ordinance No. 1222

Page 335 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2026-12

Page 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA APPROVING THE RESCINDING OF RESOLUTION
2023-71 APPROVED OCTOBER 10, 2023, AND TO REMOVE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL #75 FROM THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE SEVILLA II
(PYRAMID RANCH) PROJECT LOCATED WEST OF VAN BUREN
STREET, SOUTH OF AVENUE 50, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 51, APN #’S 779-280-002 AND 779-320-001 AND CERTIFYING THAT THE

PROJECTS INITIAL STUDY WITH MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WIT SECTION 15074 OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELNES;
APPLICANT: CITY OF COACHELLA.

WHEREAS, David Dewegeli (on behalf of the Pulte Group) filed applications on a vacant 39 acre project site located west of Van Buren Street, south of Avenue 50 and north of Avenue 51; APN #’s 779-280-002 AND 779-320-001and, WHEREAS, the City has processed said application pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66400, Title 7 of the Government Code), Title 16 of the Coachella Municipal Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended; and,
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on CZ No. 22-05, TTM No. 38557, AR No. 23-13, CUP No. 372 and EA No. 22-06 at 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California: and, WHEREAS, 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 the Coachella Municipal Code, and the attendant applications for a Change of Zone, Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Review to allow the Project; 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 the 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, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality

Page 336 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2026-12

Page 2 ends

Act, an initial study was prepared that determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval as stipulated by the City are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coachella finds that Tentative Tract Map No. 38557 is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2025 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1222, which amended portions of the Coachella Municipal Code related to Short-Term Vacation Rentals; and,
WHEREAS, at the time of the Sevilla II (Pyramid Ranch) project’s approval, a condition of approval was included prohibiting short-term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13 before the adoption of Ordinance No. 1222; and, WHEREAS, following adoption of the ordinance, there was miscommunication between City staff and the project developer regarding which regulatory framework would apply to the project. Specifically, the parties operated under differing interpretations as to whether the project would remain subject to the previously adopted conditions of approval or if the development was to transition to the newly adopted ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, to eliminate ambiguity and align the project with the City’s current regulatory framework, staff is recommending removal of the existing condition that references the prior condition of approval; and,
WHEREAS, upon removal of that condition, the project would be governed by the provisions of Ordinance No. 1222 and any applicable sections of the Coachella Municipal Code as currently adopted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 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.

Page 337 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2026-12

Page 3 ends

impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as provided in “Exhibit A” have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Coachella’s Local CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. Findings of Environmental Impacts. Based on the whole record before it, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, the administrative record and all other written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Project as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study can mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council further 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. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

SECTION 4. Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby finds adequacy in the environmental review documents and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

SECTION 5. Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit Architectural Review Findings
With respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 38557, Conditional Use Permit No. 372 and Architectural Review 23-13, the City Council finds as follows for the proposed for the 204 single-family residential development project:

1. The proposed subdivision map, conditional use permit and architectural review are consistent with the General Plan and the City of Coachella Official Zoning Map governing the site. The subject site is a 39-acre mostly vacant parcel with adequate access and lot dimensions to allow for the intended single-family residential lot development in a manner consistent with the General Neighborhood land use designation of the General Plan and General Neighborhood-Planned Unit Development Zoning Designation. The project will substantially comply with the General Plan 2035 document which calls for a “General Neighborhood” encouraging a predominance of small-lot, single-family residential neighborhoods.

2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density. The proposed subdivision will provide adequate sized lots for new single-family residential lots. All proposed lots will have adequate dimensions, and ingress and egress to accommodate the proposed development.

Page 338 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2026-12

Page 4 ends

site. The initial environmental study prepared for this project did not identify any biological resources on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be impacted by the proposed project.

4. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause any serious public health problems. As proposed, the proposed project would allow for single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. The adjoining uses are consistent with the proposed use of the property as a single-family detached subdivision.

5. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project is located on the west side of Van Buren Avenue, south of Avenue 50, north of Avenue 51.

6. The design of the subdivision will provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The proposed subdivision will provide adequate sites for new homes with southern exposure, and all future construction will be designed to the latest Building Codes and energy efficient design and construction will be required by the City’s Building Department.

7. Staff prepared an initial study for the Sevilla II Project applications that determined that that the proposed project will not create any new potentially adverse environmental effects. As such, the project’s environmental effects will not be significant subject to the project’s compliance with the mitigation measures, as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained in Exhibit A of Attachment No.

1. SECTION 6. Location and 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. The Development Services Director is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 7. Execution of Resolution. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

SECTION 8. City Council Approval: Based on the foregoing recitals and findings above, and the written and oral comments, facts and evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Coachella hereby approves Resolution No. 2026-12 to rescind Resolution No. 2023-71 approved on October 10, 2023 and remove Condition of Approval No. 75 prohibiting short term rentals within the development until two years after the final occupancy permit has been issued for TR. 38557, CUP 372 and AR 23-13.

Page 339 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2026-12

Page 5 ends

PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED at the City Council of the City of Coachella held on March 25, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT

ABSTAIN
________________________________
Steven A. Hernandez, Mayor
City of Coachella
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Angela M. Zepeda, City Clerk
City of Coachella
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Ryan Guiboa, City Attorney
City of Coachella

Page 340 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2023-71

Page 1 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-71

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COACHELLA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38557, CUP
372, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO. 23-13 AND STREET NAMES.

TTM NO. 38557 PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROECT SITE INTO 204 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; CUP NO. 372 PROPOSES TO UTILIZE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.38 (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) OF THE COACHELLA MUNICIPAL CODE;
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO. 23-13 IS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE

PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 22-06 WAS PREPARED TO

ADDRESS THE DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT; ON A
39 ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF VAN BUREN STREET, SOUTH OF AVENUE 50, NORTH OF AVENUE 51; APN #’s 779-280-002 AND 779- 320-001; THE PULTE GROUP, APPLICANT.

Page 341 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2023-71

Page 2 ends

designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was prepared that determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval as stipulated by the City are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coachella finds that Tentative Tract Map No. 38557 is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 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 City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study for Environmental Assessment No. 22-06, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as provided in “Exhibit A” have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Coachella’s Local CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby finds adequacy in the environmental review documents and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Page 342 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2023-71

Page 3 ends

3. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no sensitive habitats or bodies of water in the immediate vicinity of the site. The initial environmental study prepared for this project did not identify any biological resources on the site or in the vicinity of the project that would be impacted by the proposed project.

Page 343 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2023-71

Page 4 ends

SECTION 7. Execution of Resolution. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

SECTION 8. City Council Approval: Based on the foregoing recitals and findings above, and the written and oral comments, facts and evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Coachella hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 38557 “Exhibit B”, Conditional Use Permit No. 372, and Architectural Review 23-13 and Street Names for the Sevilla II development and subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in “Exhibit C” and Planned Unit Development Standards established in “Exhibit D.”

Page 344 ends

Item 21.

Resolution No. 2023-71

Page 5 ends

PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Coachella held on October 30, 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT

Page 345 ends

Item 21.

Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
September 2023
City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, California 92236
Contact: Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
Pulte Group
27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Contact: David Dewegeli, Manager of Land Planning and Entitlement Michael Baker International
54-410 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 100
Palm Desert, California 92211
Contact: Elizabeth Meyerhoff, Project Manager

Page 346 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page i
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Purpose and Content of an Initial Study ....................................................................................... 2

1.3 Public Review ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Initial Study Summary ................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Incorporation by Reference .......................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan................................................................................... 5

2.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Project Summary........................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Landscaping................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Utilities and Services..................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Construction.................................................................................................................................. 7

2.5 Anticipated Approvals and Permits .............................................................................................. 7

3.0 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................... 29

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................................... 30

3.2 Lead Agency’s Environmental Determination ............................................................................ 31

4.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts............................................................................ 32

4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................... 32

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................ 35

4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 39

4.4 Biological Resources.................................................................................................................... 54

4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 59

4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 63

4.7 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................ 73

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................... 80

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 94

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 99

4.11 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................................................. 105

4.12 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 107

4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 109

Page 347 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page ii

4.14 Population and Housing............................................................................................................ 124

4.15 Public Services........................................................................................................................... 126

4.16 Recreation................................................................................................................................. 130

4.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 132

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 137

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 140

4.20 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 1455

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................................... 148

5.0 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................151

6.0 References ..................................................................................................................152 List of Tables
Table 4-1 Project-Generated Construction Emissions................................................................................45 Table 4-2 Project-Generated Operational Emissions..................................................................................48 Table 4-3 Localized Construction Emissions Significance ...........................................................................51 Table 4-4 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ...........................................................................67 Table 4-5 Consistency with the General Plan .............................................................................................71 Table 4-6 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................87 Table 4-7 Project Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ............................................................................89 Table 4-8 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 Inventory Sectors............................................91 Table 4-9 Consistency with the General Plan .............................................................................................92 Table 4-10 Coachella Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix ....................................................................111 Table 4-11 Sound Level Limits...................................................................................................................113 Table 4-12 Short-Term Noise Measurements...........................................................................................116 Table 4-13 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment............................................117 Table 4-14 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots................................................................120 Table 4-15 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.............................................................122 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location..........................................................................................................................9 Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity..................................................................................................................................11 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 4: Site Photographs.........................................................................................................................15 Exhibit 5: Jackson Substation Connection ..................................................................................................27

Page 348 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page iii
Appendices
Appendix A: Project Materials
Appendix B: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis
Appendix C: Biological Habitat Assessment
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E1: Traffic Impact Study
Appendix E2: VMT Analysis
Appendix F: Geotechnical Report
Appendix G: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H: Hydrological Report
Appendix I: Noise Data
Appendix J: Tribal Correspondence
Appendix K: Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix L: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 349 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 350 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 1 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38577 (proposed project) would develop a 204-lot residential development in the City of Coachella. The project site is approximately 39-acres and located north of 51st Avenue, east of Calhoun Street, south of Avenue 50, and west along Van Buren Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers 779-280-002 and 779-320-001). Refer to Section 2.0, Project Description for more detail.

Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Coachella (City) has determined that the project is subject to the guidelines and statutes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As the Lead Agency, the City has reviewed the project and, on the basis of the whole record before it, has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, with adherence to the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed project. This IS/MND reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgement and analysis.

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.70.10) the 2022 State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s 2020 Local CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency is required to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a)).

If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for that project. Such a determination can be made only if “There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(1)).

The environmental documentation outlined above, which is ultimately determined by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and/or other discretionary approvals would be required.

The environmental documentation is subject to a public review period. During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City in

Page 351 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 2 ends

writing. Following review of any written comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and will include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City’s decision-makers.

1.2 Purpose and Content of an Initial Study
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), the purpose of an Initial Study is to:
(1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. (3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(D) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects. (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(f) identifies specific content and format requirements for an Initial Study:

A description of the project including the location of the project; An identification of the environmental setting;
An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries;

Page 352 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 3 ends

A discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and,
The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.

This report is organized as follows:
▪ Section 1.0, Introduction: identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND. ▪ Section 2.0, Project Description: describes the location, general environmental setting, project background, project components, and the characteristics of the project’s construction and operational phases.
▪ Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist Form: provides a checklist of environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project and a description of the possible threshold responses.
▪ Section 4.0, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: presents the environmental setting and impact analysis for each resource topic.
▪ Section 5.0, List of Preparers: identifies individuals involved in preparing this IS/MND. ▪ Section 6.0, References: provides refences materials and sources used for the development of the document.

1.3 Public Review
The Initial Study is subject to a 30-day public review period. During the 30-day public review period, written comments on the document should be addressed to the City via postal mail or electronic mail:

Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236
[email protected]
Following review of [any] written comments received by the City, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and project consideration by the City’s decision-makers at a public hearing.

Page 353 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 4 ends

1.4 Initial Study Summary
Section 4.0 of this document contains the Initial Study prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the project would result in no impact or a less than significant environmental impact to: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.

The Initial Study concluded that the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated to the following resource areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

1.5 Incorporation by Reference
The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150). The documents are available for review on the City of Coachella’s website (https://www.coachella.org/departments/community-development) and at City Hall, within the Development Services Department located at 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, CA 92236. ▪ City of Coachella General Plan 2035 (adopted April 22, 2015). The City of Coachella General Plan 2035 (General Plan) includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines development goals and policies. It guides growth and development within the City by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan. It also provides a long-term vision for the City, and through its implementation goals and policies, indicate how that vision may be achieved over time. The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use, Mobility, Community Health and Wellness, Sustainability and Natural Environment, Safety, Infrastructure and Public Services, Noise, and Housing. All development projects, including subdivisions, public works, redevelopment projects, zoning decisions, and other various implementation tools must be consistent with the General Plan. ▪ City of Coachella General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report (February 2015). The City of Coachella General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information concerning the environmental effects of implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR includes background data, analyzes potential environmental impacts, identifies General Plan policies and implementation plans that serve as mitigation, and identifies additional mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects due to implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan implementation would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts in the following topic areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, and Transportation and Traffic.

Page 354 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 5 ends

▪ Coachella Municipal Code (and Zoning Consistency Update July 2023). The Coachella Municipal Code (Municipal Code) provides regulations for governmental operations, development, infrastructure, public health and safety, and business operations within the City. Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), is established to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of the City and its inhabitants. The Zoning Ordinance regulates the use of buildings, structures, and land for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional purposes; regulates location, height, bulk, and area covered by buildings and structures; and controls lot size, yards, intensity of land use, signs, and off-street parking.

1.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) identifies mitigation measures required to offset or reduce potential environmental impacts. The City shall adopt a program for monitoring/reporting on the measures it has imposed to mitigate, reduce, or avoid significant environmental effect (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP is included as Appendix L, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Page 355 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 6 ends

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Summary
The City of Coachella is located in the central portion of Riverside County, within the Coachella Valley. Refer to Exhibit 1: Regional Location, Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity, and Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan. Photographs documenting the existing site conditions and surroundings are included as Exhibit 4: Site Photographs.

The Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38577 (TTM 38577 and “proposed project”) is planned as a residential development in the City of Coachella. The project site consists of two (2) parcels and is approximately 39-acresin size. The project site is located north of 51st Avenue, east of Calhoun Street, south of Avenue 50, and west along Van Buren Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers 779-280- 002 and 779-320-001).

The proposed project would construct approximately 204 single family residential dwellings.

Typical lots would be approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The proposed project would include pedestrian sidewalks; landscaping; an approximate 1.0-acre recreational park area; an approximate 1.37-acre water retention basin; an approximate 0.23-acre dedicated [future] well site; monument signage; and street and utility improvements.

General Plan Land Use and Zoning
The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Neighborhood. According to the General Plan, this designation characteristic allows for a mix of single-family and multi-family housing types with good nonmotorized access to a range of civic and commercial amenities.

Development intensity allows for 7-25 dwelling units per acre. Development of the site would result in approximately 7.7 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the land use designation.

The project site consists of two (2) parcels zoned (GN) General Neighborhood. This project includes a change of zone to General Neighborhood-Planned Unit Development (GN-PUD) to provide design and zoning standards for the site. The project includes a Parcel Merger to combine the two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel; a Conditional Use Permit for the PUD (CUP 372); and Architectural Review (AR 23-13).

Existing Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is currently developed with one (1) residence located in the central portion of the subject site, along with five (5) warehouse/storage buildings. Two groundwater wells are present on-site. The project site has been historically utilized for agricultural purposes since the 1920s for date palm and okra cultivation. Since approximately 2021, the site has been fallow.

Page 356 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 7 ends

The project site is bordered to the north by fallow agricultural land, to the east by residential uses; to the south by agricultural land; and to the west by both fallow agricultural land and residential uses.

Site Access
Access to the site would be developed via two entry points from Van Buren Street. Access and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City design and engineering standards.

2.2 Landscaping
Open areas, walkways, and lots would be lined with drought-resistant vegetation, “Mojave Gold” gravel, and ornamental rocks, creating a desert garden aesthetic. Trees would include accents such as mulga, Smoothie thornless cascalote, and desert willow, as well as shade trees including desert ironwood and thornless hybrid mesquite. Shrubs of various sizes would be planted throughout, including grey desert spoon, aloe, yucca, and jojoba. Landscape species and irrigation would be required to adhere to the City’s planting selection for landscaping.

2.3 Utilities and Services
The Coachella Water Authority and Sanitary District would provide domestic (drinking) water and sanitation water services to the site.

Gas utilities would be provided by Southern California Gas Company.

Electricity would be provided by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) via connection at the Jackson Substation, which is located less than one mile from the project site; refer to Exhibit 5, Jackson Substation Connection. The proposed project would require the installation of underground powerlines from the Jackson Substation to the project site.

2.4 Construction
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur for the duration of approximately 6 to 12 months for rough grading and site improvements. Vertical construction would depend on market conditions, with an expected date for initial occupancy of January 2025, and an approximate buildout period of 2 years.

2.5 Anticipated Approvals and Permits
The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project, which requires the following approvals, in addition to various approvals/permits from outside agencies:
▪ Tentative Tract Map; CEQA compliance; Change of Zone; Conditional Use Permit; and Architectural Review (City)

Page 357 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 8 ends

▪ Domestic and sanitation water services from the Coachella Water Authority (CWA) ▪ Stormwater management and associated service consistent with the provisions of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
▪ Electrical connection/upgrade from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ▪ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
▪ Fugitive Dust Control Permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

Page 358 ends

Item 21.
?±
¡
?
AÌ
Palm Springs
Indio
La Quinta
Cathedral City
Coachella
Palm Desert Rancho Mirage
Desert Hot Springs
Sevilla IITentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regional Location
Exhibit 1
° 0 2.5 5
Miles
Source: ESRI Relief Map, National Highway Planning Network Project Location
)
)
Project
Location
!"$`
A³ AÌ
Salton Sea

Page 359 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 10 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 360 ends

Item 21.

Sevilla IITentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Site Vicinity
Exhibit 2
°Source: Michael Baker International
Not to Scale

Page 361 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 12 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 362 ends

Item 21.
6HYLOOD,,7HQWDWLYH7UDFW0DS1R
,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ
Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 3
°Source: Michael Baker International
Not to Scale

Page 363 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 14 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 364 ends

Item 21.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!>
!>

33.68435
-116.198575

33.679352
-116.204005
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P3 P4
P2
P1
P10
Project Site
Exhibit 4
°
0 125 250
Feet
11/4/2022 JN \\Temeca1fs1\hroot\pdata\189548\GIS\APRX\Sevilla_II_TTM38557_Natural_Resources\Sevilla_II_TTM38557_Natural_Resources.aprx Legend
Project Site (39.05 acres)
"
Photograph Point and Direction
!> Reference Point
Source: Nearmap (01/2022)
Van Buren St
Via Merida
Via ValenciaPaseo Madrid
SEVILLA II TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38557
Initial Study/MItigated Negative Declaration

Page 365 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 16 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 366 ends

Item 21.

Site Photographs
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Photograph 1: Standing near the northwest corner of the project site, facing east.

Photograph 2: Standing near the western boundary of the project site, facing south.

Page 367 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 20 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 368 ends

Item 21.

Site Photographs
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Photograph 3: Standing near the southwest corner of the project site, facing northeast.

Photograph 4: Standing near the southeast corner of the project site, facing northwest.

Page 369 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 18 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 370 ends

Item 21.

Site Photographs
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Photograph 5: Standing in the western portion of the project site, facing east.

Photograph 6: Standing in the center of the project site, facing southwest.

Page 371 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 22 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 372 ends

Item 21.

Site Photographs
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Photograph 7: Standing near the northern boundary of the project site, facing northeast.

Photograph 8: Standing near the northeast corner of the project site, facing southwest.

Page 373 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 24 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 374 ends

Item 21.

Site Photographs
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Photograph 9: Standing in the southeast portion of the project site, facing west.

Photograph 10: Standing in the southwest portion of the project site, facing south.

Page 375 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 26 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 376 ends

Item 21.

Sevilla IITentative Tract Map No. 38557
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Jackson Substation Connection
Exhibit 5
°Source: Michael Baker International
Not to Scale

Page 377 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 28 ends

This page intentionally left blank

Page 378 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 29 ends

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title: Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557 TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA
22-06

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella CA 92236

3. Lead Agency Contact Person and
Phone Number:

Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director /
Phone: (760) 398-3502

4. Project Location: North of 51st Avenue, east of Calhoun Street, south of Avenue 50, and west of Van Buren
Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers 779-280-002
and 779-320-001).

5. Project Applicant Name and Address: Pulte Group, David Dewegeli 27401 Los Altos, Suite 400
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

6. General Plan Designation: General Neighborhood

7. Zoning: General Neighborhood

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project would construct approximately 204 single family residential dwellings. Typical lots would be approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The proposed project would include pedestrian sidewalks; landscaping; an approximate 1.0-acre recreational park area; an approximate 1.37-acre water retention basin; an approximate

0.23-acre dedicated [future] well site; monument signage; and street and utility improvements. Access to the project site would be available via two entry points from Van Buren Street.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is bordered to the north by agricultural land, to the east by residential uses; to the south by agricultural land; and to the west by both agricultural land and residential uses.

Page 379 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 30 ends

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

Approval and coordination are required by the following utility agencies: Coachella Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District. In addition, permits are required by the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project are requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), the City of Coachella distributed letters notifying each Native American Tribal government having previously requested to be on the City’s AB 52 consultation list. The AB 52 letters were distributed by mail on January 12, 2023. Responses were received from Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (ABCI) on January 24, 2023, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) on March 20, 2023. The letter from the Tribal Secretary of ABCI indicated that the tribe is currently unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the project. It was requested that the tribe be contacted immediately in the event that cultural resources are uncovered during project implementation. The letter from the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of MBMI stated that the project is not within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Refer to Appendix J, Tribal Correspondence.

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

Page 380 ends

Item 21.

Page 381 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 32 ends

4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
A) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Coachella General Plan 2035 identifies the Indio Hills (located approximately 5 miles to the north) and the Mecca Hills (located approximately 8 miles to the southeast) as scenic backdrops providing visual quality to the area. Views of the Indio Hills are available from the project site and surrounding area. Distant views of the Santa Rosa Mountains (approximately 8 miles to the southwest) are also available from the site. Based on these distances, as well as the presence of existing residential and commercial development in the local area, the project would not block views of or from these scenic resources. Thus, the inclusion of the project within the existing viewshed would be consistent with views presently found in the project area. Additionally, the project would be subject to the City’s established design guidelines and current building standards as provided in the Coachella Municipal Code

Page 382 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 33 ends

Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning), which regulate the height and bulk of the buildings.

Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

B) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System,1the project site is not located adjacent to or near any state or county, eligible or designated scenic highway. The nearest designated scenic highway is State Route 74 (SR-74) located approximately 12 miles to the west. SR-111 is an eligible scenic highway; however, it is only eligible at the segments from Interstate 10 (I-10) near Whitewater City to SR74 near Palm Desert and from 66th Avenue near Mecca City to Bombay Beach near the Salton Sea. The section of SR-111 that passes through Coachella City is not eligible as a scenic highway.

In addition, the project site does not contain scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. No impact to these resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

C) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality means making substantial changes to the existing appearance of a site by constructing elements that are poorly designed or that conflict with the existing surroundings.

The project site is located in an area containing fallow agricultural uses to the north and south, existing residential development to the east, and residential uses to the west. Consistent with the proposed project, much of the surrounding area within a 1-mile radius of the project site is developed with residential neighborhoods.
1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Mapping System website, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways accessed 9-15-22.

Page 383 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 34 ends

The project involves the grading and construction of a 204-unit single-family residential development including installation of right-of-way improvements such as sidewalks, street lighting, and landscaping. The architectural design of the project would adhere to the requirements of the Coachella Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) including design standards related to building size, height, and setback, as well as landscaping, signage, and other considerations. The City’s design standards ensure that land uses within an area are visually consistent with one another and their surroundings and reduce the potential for aesthetic conflict. The design specifications of development proposals are reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions as set forth by the Coachella Municipal Code.

As part of this review process, project plans are reviewed by City staff and the Planning Commission to ensure conformation to the Coachella Municipal Code, as well as the visual character and quality of the surrounding area.

While project implementation would change the visual quality of the project site and its surroundings, the proposed project would not degrade the visual quality of the project area because the project is designed to be visually consistent with the surrounding uses. Moreover, the project site and surrounding properties have been designated for development in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with the existing visual character and quality would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

D) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light and glare in the immediate project area include vehicle headlights traveling along Avenue 50 north of the site, and Van Buren Street immediately to the east; streetlights; and the residential developments to the east of the site.

Currently, there are no existing sources of light on the project site.

Buildout of the project can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from exterior building lighting, required street lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles. However, light and glare levels are expected to be consistent with existing residential developments within the surrounding environment and would be regulated by city lighting standards. The project would be designed according to Coachella Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning), which set regulations for outdoor lighting on all city properties to minimize light pollution.

Therefore, potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Page 384 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 35 ends

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
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 nonagricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Page 385 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 36 ends

Discussion
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 nonagricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,2the project site is designated as Prime Farmland.

Development of the site to a residential use would therefore result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to a nonagricultural use.

However, the General Plan designates the site for residential land use and the site is also zoned for residential development. The General Plan 2035 EIR concluded that, although the General Plan presents numerous goals and policies that would help to minimize impacts to agricultural resources, the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique farmland would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact as part of General Plan implementation and no feasible mitigation measures were identified regarding the loss of the City’s Prime Farmland.

Instead, the General Plan presents a strategy of managing the transition from agricultural to urban uses through focused growth areas, market support, and land use controls with the intent of preventing the premature conversion of agricultural lands.3 The General Plan identifies “subareas” in order to focus development, to accommodate the City’s population growth while retaining certain subareas for agricultural use. The project site is included in Subarea 1 – West Coachella Neighborhoods. Subarea 1 contains existing single-family neighborhoods and is described with a vision for infill development of new neighborhoods in the future. Conversely, Subarea 15 – Cocopah Area and Subarea 16 – South Coachella are prioritized by the General Plan for conservation of agricultural land.

Although the project site is designated as Prime Farmland impacts would be less than significant because the project is consistent with the General Plan’s direction for Subarea 1, for which the impacts to agricultural land have already been considered in the General Plan 2035 EIR, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. Additionally, the residential project is overall consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning for residential development at the site. Therefore, impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are considered less than significant.
2 California Department of Conservation website,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ accessed 9-15-22. 3 City of Coachella General Plan 2035, Draft Environmental Impact Report, https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/final-eir.html accessed 9-15-22.

Page 386 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 37 ends

Mitigation Measures: None required.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, allows local governments and private landowners to form contracts that restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. According to Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, of the City’s General Plan EIR,4there are approximately 1,480 acres of land in the City and its sphere of influence are under Williamson Act contracts that have not been renewed and are set to expire. The project site is not located on or adjacent to any existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and has been rezoned for residential uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan does not include Forest Land or Timberland designations, nor does the City have zones for these uses. The City occurs on the Coachella Valley floor, and no forest of timber lands occur in the desert climate. As such, the site does not contain any forest land or timberland, nor is it zoned for timberland production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact. The project site is currently fallow from past agricultural uses and developed with one residence and several buildings. The site does not contain forest land, as defined above.

Furthermore, the project site is not zoned for forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
4 City of Coachella General Plan 2035, Draft Environmental Impact Report, https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/final-eir.html accessed 9-15-22.

Page 387 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 38 ends

Mitigation Measures: None required.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(a), above. The project site is designated as Prime Farmland and has historically been utilized as agricultural use; however, the project would not result in a significant loss of farmland because development of the project site has already been evaluated in the General Plan 2035 EIR and is consistent with the site’sland use designation for residential development. Additionally, no designated forestlands are present on the project site and no impact due to the conversion of forestland to non-forest use would occur. Based upon the above, impacts relative to the conversion of farmland would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Page 388 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 39 ends

4.3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
This section is based on the CalEEMod Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy outputs prepared by Michael Baker International on January 24, 2023; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis.

Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions set forth in the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP utilized information and data from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) and its 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020- 2045 RTP/SCS). According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency with 2022 AQMP, two main criteria must be addressed:

Page 389 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 40 ends

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant during project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized concentrations during project construction and operation; refer to Reponses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends.

Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each these criteria.

Page 390 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 41 ends

a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
Growth projections included in the 2022 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on general plan land use designation and SCAG’s 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments, such as the City of Coachella. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing) into the 2022 AQMP.

Based on the General Plan, the project site is designated General Neighborhood which allows for 7-25 dwelling units per acre. The project has a proposed net density of 7.7 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the land use designation.

The City’s population estimate as of January 1, 2022, is 42,158 persons.5 Based on the City’s average household size of 4.256, the 204 units would introduce up to 867 additional residents within the City. The forecast population in 2045 is 129,300 persons.7 The project’s potential impacts would be considered less than significant since the 867 additional residents represents only a 2.1 percent increase from the City’s current population and are consistent with 2045 projections. Thus, the project would be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, the project would be consistent with the projections.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity and would be considered consistent with the General Plan upon the City’s approvals on the required change of zone. Further, the population and housing projections, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, the proposed project would be consistent with the projections.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? 5 State of California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021- 2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark, May 2022, https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-andhousing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/, accessed January 3, 2023. 6 Ibid.
7 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Demographics & Growth Forecast, September 3, 2020.

Page 391 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 42 ends

The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the proposed project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. Further, in compliance with CALGreen Code, all single-family residential units of the project would be electric vehicle (EV) capable by including a listed raceway8 within each dwelling unit to accommodate EV charging stations. This project design feature would encourage and support the use of EVs within the proposed residential development.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In addition, as discussed above, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.

In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with longterm influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards.

Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and 2022 AQMP. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Criteria Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most 8 A raceway is the enclosed conduit that forms the physical pathway for electrical writing to protect it from damage.

Page 392 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 43 ends

susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of CO.

Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).

NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board

Page 393 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 44 ends

(CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that designates the basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current state standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx.

Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air.

VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below).

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.

Page 394 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 45 ends

Short-term Construction Emissions
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would involve 59,039 cubic yards soil import. Depending on market conditions, building construction and associated architectural coating applications would last for up to two years. The modeling assumed that building construction and associated architectural coating applications would last for six months and three months, respectively, and that construction would conclude by the end of 2024. This assumption is conservative because construction activities would be less intensive and daily emissions would be lower when the schedule is extended. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 4-1, Project-Generated Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.

Table 4-1
Project-Generated Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 3.89 66.26 37.32 0.21 9.77 4.16
Year 2 38.81 73.82 52.16 0.23 10.31 4.56
Maximum Daily Emissions 38.81 73.82 52.16 0.23 10.31 4.56 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Winter emissions represent worst-case.

2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules.

The adjustments applied in CalEEMod includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix B.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emission that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading,

Page 395 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 46 ends

excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.

Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and resuspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the Earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.

The project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. As depicted in Table 4-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, construction worker commutes to the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 4-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the SCAQMD, ROG emissions associated with paving and architectural coating have been quantified with CalEEMod. As required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113, Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.9 ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf, accessed January 3, 2023.

Page 396 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 47 ends

Total Daily Construction Emissions
As indicated in Table 4-1, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.

Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area.10 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Long-term Operational Emissions
Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and emissions from area and energy sources. As a conservative analysis, the emissions from existing uses on-site are not quantified and not deducted from the project emissions. Emissions associated with each source are detailed in Table 4-2, Project-Generated Operational Emissions, and discussed below.
10 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.

Page 397 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 48 ends

Table 4-2
Project-Generated Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area 8.95 3.24 18.11 0.02 0.34 0.34
Energy 0.17 1.46 0.62 <0.01 0.12 0.12
Mobile 5.56 5.83 55.90 0.13 14.09 3.81
Total Summer Emissions2 14.69 10.53 74.64 0.16 14.55 4.27 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Area 8.95 3.24 18.11 0.02 0.34 0.34
Energy 0.17 1.46 0.62 <0.01 0.12 0.12
Mobile 5.36 6.26 54.02 0.12 14.09 3.81
Total Winter Emissions2 14.49 10.96 72.75 0.15 14.55 4.27 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas, consumer products, area architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment associated with the development of the proposed project. As shown in Table 4-2, area source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (nonhearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table 4-2. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of

Page 398 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 49 ends

regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

The mobile source emissions were calculated using the trip generation data provided in the TTM 38577 Sevilla II, Transportation Analysis Scoping Agreement (Traffic Scoping Agreement), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated October 31, 2022. According to the Traffic Scoping Agreement, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,944 average daily trips. As shown in Table 4-2, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts from mobile source emissions would be less than significant.

Total Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 4-2, the total operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]).

In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (dated April 6, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (dated April 13, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, SJVAPCD acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.

The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region.

Page 399 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 50 ends

The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored sites by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health effects.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as those most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 80 feet east of the proposed project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operational impacts (stationary source only).

Localized Significance Thresholds
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, Coachella Valley.

Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.11 According to CalEEMod output, the project would actively disturb an average of approximately three acres per day. Therefore, the LST 11 The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. In order to properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8- hour workday.

Page 400 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 51 ends

thresholds for two-acre were conservatively utilized for the construction LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located approximately 80 feet to the east of the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 80 feet (24 meters) from the planned construction area, the LST values for 25 meters were used.

Table 4-3, Localized Construction Emissions Significance, shows the localized constructionrelated emissions for NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 compared to LSTs for SRA 30. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 4-2 are less than those in Table 4-1 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 4-3, the project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 30. Therefore, the localized significance impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

Operations LST
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project is a residential development and would not attract mobile sources that may queue or idle on-site for extended periods of time. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed.

Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Table 4-3
Localized Construction Emissions Significance
Source1
Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 12 34.52 28.05 4.92 2.68
Year 22 32.38 27.72 4.83 2.60
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.52 28.05 4.92 2.68
Localized Significance Threshold3 191 1,299 7 5
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The “mitigation” applied in CalEEMod includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix B.

2. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during grading phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 1 and Year 2.

3. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (three acres per day, but round down to use two-acre threshold as a conservative analysis) and distance to sensitive receptor (25 meters) for SRA 30, Coachella Valley.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.

Page 401 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 52 ends

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.12 Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. The closest monitoring station to the project site that monitors CO concentration is the Palm Spring – Fire Station (590 E Racquet Club Avenue, Palm Springs, California, 92262), located approximately 23 miles northwest of the project site. The maximum CO concentration at the Palm Spring -- Fire Station was measured at

0.762 ppm in 2022.13 Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site. Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavyduty equipment exhaust and architectural coating. However, construction-related odors would 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed January 4, 2023.
13 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed January 4, 2023.

Page 402 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 53 ends

be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Page 403 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 54 ends

4.4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
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 US 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
This section is a summary of the findings within the Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis for Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557 prepared for the

Page 404 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 55 ends

project by Michael Baker International in 2022; refer to Appendix C, Biological Habitat Assessment of this IS/MND.

Discussion
A Biological Habitat Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis (Habitat Assessment) was conducted to characterize existing site conditions and assess the probability of occurrence of special-status14 plant and wildlife species that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. The project site is currently vacant with generally flat topography and natural communities comprised of sandy soils that are disturbed due to the site’s previous agricultural uses. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site include vacant, undeveloped land, remnant agricultural land, and single-family residential development. One (1) vegetation community was observed and mapped within the boundaries of the project site during the field survey: tamarisk thicket.

No drainage features or potential wetland features were observed on or within the vicinity of the project site during the field survey.

The project site is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Area but is not located within or adjacent to a designated Conservation Areas, Preserves, Cores, or Linkages.
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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No special-status plant species were observed within the project site during the Biological Habitat Assessment. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, no special-status plant species are expected to occur within the project site.

No special-status wildlife species were observed within the project site during the field survey.

Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, Michael Baker determined that the project site also has a moderate potential to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; a State SSC).

The project site is located near existing residential and commercial developments and several utility poles are located along nearby roadways that could provide perching opportunities for 14 As used in the Habitat Assessment, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are Federally-/State-listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank by the California Native Plant Society; wildlife species that are designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as Fully Protected, Species of Special Concern, or Watch List species; State/locally rare vegetation communities, and species covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Page 405 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 56 ends

predatory raptors. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts to burrowing owls and nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Clearance Survey: If project-related activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1 to August 31), the Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. If no active bird nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required. If an active bird nest is found, the species shall be identified, and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be increased or decreased based on the judgement of the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new bird nests in the restricted area.

BIO-2 Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Clearance Surveys: Within 30 days prior to initiating ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities, the Applicant shall conduct a clearance survey by a qualified biologist to confirm that burrowing owls remain absent, and impacts do not occur to any occupied burrows that may be located on or within 500 feet of the project site. In accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, 2012), one pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities. Documentation of the surveys and findings shall be provided to the City of Coachella for review prior to initiating project activities. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, project-related activities may begin. If an occupied burrow is detected, the qualified biologist shall flag the location and establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the burrow in accordance with the CVMSHCP and contact CDFW to determine the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation.

If an occupied burrow is found outside, but within 500 feet, of the development footprint, the qualified biologist shall establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the burrow location(s). The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be determined in

Page 406 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 57 ends

consultation with CDFW and be based on the species status (i.e., breeding, nonbreeding) and proposed level of disturbance. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint and cannot be avoided, the qualified biologist shall flag the location and establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the burrow in accordance with Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP and contact CDFW to determine the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation. 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. No potential drainage features, such as rivers or streams, were observed on or within the vicinity of the project site during the Habitat Assessment. As such, the project would not result in impacts to state or federal jurisdictional features and regulatory approvals from the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW would not be required. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
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? No Impact. Potential wetland features were not observed on or within the vicinity of the project site during the Habitat Assessment field survey. Furthermore, Michael Baker Biologists conducted a literature review and records search for special-status species, habitat linkages, corridors, geological features, and soil types. No record of state or federally protected wetlands were discovered in the literature review nor the field survey. Because no such wetlands are present, the project would not result in impacts to state or federal wetlands.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
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? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not adjacent to, or nearby, a Conservation Area as established by the CVMSHCP or any other established wildlife corridors. Project activities are not expected to impede wildlife movement through the area. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Page 407 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 58 ends

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The City is a Permittee under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). As such, the City established a Local Development Mitigation Fee. To assist in providing revenue for the conservation of lands necessary to implement the CVMSHCP, each project in the City must pay into the Local Development Mitigation Fee. 15 With payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee, the project would be fully consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the CVMSHCP and no further avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP Area, but is not located within any Conservation Areas, Preserves, Cores, or Linkages. The project is not listed as a planned “Covered Activity” under the published CVMSHCP but is still considered to be a current Covered Activity pursuant to Section 7.1 of the CVMSHCP.16 With payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee and completion of the pre-construction clearance surveys for nesting birds and burrowing owls, the project would be fully consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the CVMSHCP and no further avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
15 Coachella Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 1029, adopted September 2011. 16 Covered Activities are defined as certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization and others within the CVMSHCP Area, as described in Section 7 of the CVMSHCP, that will receive Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit and the Natural Community Conservation Plan Permit, provided these activities are otherwise lawful.

Page 408 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 59 ends

4.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:
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) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Memorandum for the Sevilla II Project was prepared by Michael Baker International in December 2022; refer to Appendix D, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Memorandum. The cultural and paleontological resources memo included an Eastern Information Center (EIC) records search, literature and historical map review, Coachella Valley History Museum consultation, Sacred Lands File search, built environment and archaeological field surveys, California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluation of 50503 Van Buren Street, and buried archaeological site sensitivity analysis to determine if the project area contains historical resources that may be impacted by the project.

Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damaging or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource.

Based on the cultural and paleontological resources memo, the EIC records search, literature and historical map review, historical society consultation, field surveys, and California Register evaluation no historical or archaeological resources were identified within the project area. The

Page 409 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 60 ends

EIC records search indicated that two cultural resource studies have been conducted within the project area, but these did not include pedestrian surveys of the site. A total of 23 additional studies have been conducted within a half-mile search radius of the project site, resulting in the recording of 12 cultural resources within this radius. None of these resources are located within or adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, the site’s sensitivity for cultural resources is considered low due to soil age, a lack of previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area and vicinity, previous disturbances in the project area, and the lack of perennial surface water. As such, project implementation would not result in impacts to historical resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Archaeological sites are locations that contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations, and/or discoloration or accumulation of soil or food remains. As stated previously, a records search and field survey did not identify any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, within the project site. However, ground disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface during previous surveys. To minimize potential impacts to archeological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires constructional personnel to undergo training by a qualified archaeologist. The purpose of the training would be to familiarize construction personnel with the relevant legal context for cultural resources of the project, and with the types of cultural sites, features, and artifactsthat could be uncovered during construction activities. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 outlines actions that must be taken in the event of an inadvertent discovery of resources. If a cultural resource is discovered, work must be temporarily halted and a qualified archaeologist must be contacted to evaluate and recommend proper treatment for the resource. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 Cultural Resources Worker Training: Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities within the project area, the Applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology.

The qualified professional archaeologist shall conduct a training session and provide printed material to be presented to construction personnel. The purpose of this training and accompanying materials will be to familiarize construction personnel with the relevant legal context for cultural resources of the project, and with the types of cultural sites, features, and artifacts that could be uncovered during construction

Page 410 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 61 ends

activities. This training session will be conducted before beginning construction and will be repeated as needed as construction crews change.

CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery: If archaeological material is uncovered in the course of ground-disturbing activities, work will be temporarily halted in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) and the project applicant shall contact the qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment for the resource in accordance with California PRC §21083.2(i) and the provisions of CEQA. The qualified professional archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment.

The following shall apply:
▪ If the qualified professional archaeologist determines the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume, and no agency notifications are required. A record of the qualified professional archaeologist’s determination shall be made in writing to the City.
▪ If the qualified professional archaeologist finds that the find represents a cultural resource and is considered potentially eligible for listing on the California Register, the City shall be notified as soon as feasible. Based upon the archaeologist’s recommendations, the City shall determine whether the resource meets the significance criteria for inclusion in the California Register.

If the resource is determined to be significant, avoidance must be considered.

If avoidance is not feasible, then the qualified professional archaeologist shall prepare and implement appropriate treatment measures for the resource. The treatment measures may consist of data recovery excavation of a statistically significant part of those portions of the site that will be damaged or destroyed by the project. Working with the qualified professional archaeologist’s recommendations and in consultation with the tribes, the City shall determine the significance and appropriate treatment of the find. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the find is either not eligible for the CRHR, or that appropriate treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. ▪ Additionally, if the resource is prehistoric or historic-era and of Native American origin, as determined by a qualified professional archaeologist, then those Native American tribes that have requested consultation on the project pursuant to California PRC §21080.3.1 shall be notified of the find, and shall consult on the eligibility of the resource and the appropriate treatment measures.

Page 411 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 62 ends

c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has historically supported agricultural uses and is not located on or near an existing cemetery. However, grounddisturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. In the event that human remains are found, the remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains.

Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner and, if applicable, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must cease in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been notified, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the aforementioned regulations (included as Mitigation Measure CUL-3), impacts related to the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-3 Discovery of Human Remains: If human remains are found in the course of grounddisturbing activities, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055. Excavations shall halt within 60 feet of the find, and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the Coroner determines the human remains are archaeological in nature, then the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall identify the remains’ most likely descendant. A qualified professional archaeologist shall devise an appropriate treatment plan in consultation with the most likely descendant, other interested tribes, and the landowner. The City shall determine the appropriate treatment of the find. Work cannot resume within the nowork radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that appropriate treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the most likely descendant.

Page 412 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 63 ends

4.6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
ENERGY:

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
This section is based on the CalEEMod Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy outputs prepared by Michael Baker International on January 24, 2023; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis.

Discussion

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on January 1, 2023. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The 2022 Title 24 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Title 24 standards.

California Green Building Standards
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission developed CALGreen in an effort to meet the State’s landmark initiative Assembly

Page 413 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 64 ends

Bill (AB) 32 goals, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.

Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill (SB) 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent by December 31, 2045.

The bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), State board or the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB), and all other State agencies to incorporate the policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 requires the CPUC, CEC, and CARB to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve that policy and, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and every four years thereafter, that includes specified information relating to the implementation of SB 100.

California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public health and safety.

The CEC adopted the 2021 integrated energy policy report (2021 IEPR) Volume I, Volume II, and Volume IV on February 1, 2022 and Volume III on February 24, 2022.17 The 2021 IEPR provides information and policy recommendations on advancing a clean, reliable, and affordable energy 17 California Energy Commissions, 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed January 23, 2023.

Page 414 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 65 ends

system for all Californian.18 Volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the GHG emissions related to the buildings in which California live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency; Volume II examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California’s energy system; Volume III looks at the evolving role of gas in California’ energy system; and Volume IV reports on California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios of 2050. The 2021 IEPR builds on the goals and work in response to AB 758 (Energy: energy audit), SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act), AB 3232 (Zero-emissions buildings and sources of heat energy), and the 2019 IEPR to further a comprehensive approach toward decarbonizing buildings in a cost-effective and equitable manner. For the 2021 IEPR, the CEC extends the forecast timeframe to 15 years to coincide with several state goals that are planned for 2035 and improves methodologies to better quantify and predict the likelihood, severity, and duration of future extreme heat events.

Local
City of Coachella General Plan
The City Council of the City of Coachella approved the General Plan 2035 document (General Plan) on April 22, 2015. The General Plan is the primary legal document to guide long-term growth, development and conservation in the City and Sphere of influence. The General Plan is the articulation for the City’s vision of growth for the next 80 to 100 years with specific steps to guide development toward that vision between now and 2035. As such, the General Plan identifies the goals, policies and actions that will enable the City to achieve this vision. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Sustainability and Natural Environment Element
Goal 2. Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and nonpolluting energy sources.

Policies

2.1 Community development-subdivisions. When reviewing applications for new subdivisions, require all residences be oriented along an east-west access, minimizing western sun exposure, to maximize energy efficiency.

2.3 Alternative energy. Promote the incorporation of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) in public and private development.

2.5 Construction standards. Consider and evaluate new construction practices and standards that increase building energy efficiency.

2.6 Energy performance targets – new construction. Require new construction to exceed Title 24 efficiency standards by 15 percent and incorporate solar photovoltaics. 18 California Energy Commissions, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization, February 2022.

Page 415 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 66 ends

THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, project impacts are evaluated to determine whether significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. This analysis will focus on the project’s potential impacts and provide mitigation measure, if required, to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts that are identified. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to energy, if it would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (refer to Response 4.6(a)); and/or
• Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (refer to Response 4.6(b)).

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis on Response 4.6(a) relies on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:
• Criterion 1: The project energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed. • Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources. • Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction-related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy demand. The transportation energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Page 416 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 67 ends

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.

PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project:
electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off-road equipment associated with project construction and operations. The analysis of the operational electricity/natural gas usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) modeling results for the project. The project’s estimated electricity/natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for Riverside County, and consumption factors provided by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and project site.

The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in Riverside County, and the project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and house of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.

The project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 4-4, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 4-4, the project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0097 percent increase over Riverside County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0093 percent increase over Riverside County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The project’s off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, on-road construction fuel consumption, and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase Riverside County’s consumption by 0.1004 percent, 0.2758 percent, and 0.0378 percent, respectively (Criterion 1).

Table 4-4
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Riverside County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide2
Electricity Consumption 1,625 MWh 16,767,235 MWh 0.0097% Natural Gas Consumption 57,705 therms 623,146,364 therms 0.0093% Fuel Consumption
• Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption3 37,402 gallons 37,497,434 gallons 0.1004% • Construction On-Road Fuel Consumption3 2,179,512 gallons 985,997,033 gallons 0.2758% • Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption3 365,471 gallons 966,829,242 gallons 0.0378%

Page 417 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 68 ends

Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Riverside County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide2
Notes:

1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Riverside County in 2021. The project increases in construction off-road and on-road fuel consumption are compared with the projected Riverside Countywide off-road fuel consumption and Riverside Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2023, respectively. The project increase in automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2025.

Riverside County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed January 12, 2023.

Riverside County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed January 12, 2023.

3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide operational fuel consumption, off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption, and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB EMFAC2021.

Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with latest U.S. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).

Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non-recycled materials.19 The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source material.20 The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional 19 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed January 12, 2023. 20 Ibid.

Page 418 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 69 ends

demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 4-4, the project’s off-road fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 37,402 gallons and 2,179,512 gallons, respectively. The project’s off-road fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption from construction would increase off-road construction equipment diesel fuel use and on-road vehicle fuel consumption in the County by approximately 0.1004 percent and

0.2758 percent, respectively. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (Criterion 2). It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient that at comparable construction sits in the region or State (Criterion 5).

Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 4-4 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicle traveling to and from the project site. Based on project’s Traffic Scoping Agreement, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,944 daily trips. As indicated in Table 4-4, project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 365,471 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0378 percent. The project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (Criterion 2).

The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project. However, the project would locate within 0.13 mile of a bus stop, which would promote alternative mode of transportation.

Additionally, in compliance with CALGreen Code, all single-family residential units of the project would be electric vehicle (EV) capable by including a listed raceway21 within each dwelling unit to accommodate EV charging stations. This project design feature would encourage and support the use of EVs within the proposed residential development (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6). 21 Raceway is the enclosed conduit that forms the physical pathway for electrical writing to protect it from damage.

Page 419 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 70 ends

Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Building Energy Demand
The CEC developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections.22 CEC forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to

2.3 percent for electricity and less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent increase for natural gas.23 As shown in Table 4-4, operational energy consumption of the project would represent approximately 0.0097 percent increase in electricity consumption and 0.0093 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts. As such, the project would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 2). Additionally, the proposed project would be a residential development and the energy consumption would peak in the evening, similar to other residential developments. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).

The proposed residential building would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would ensure the project incorporates efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, as well as water efficient fixtures and electric vehicles charging infrastructure. Implementation of the 2022 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update, as such, complying with the latest 2022 Title 24 standards would make the proposed project energy efficient. In addition, the project would use energy efficient appliances and install solar-ready roof (Criterion 4).

Furthermore, the electricity provider, IID, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources (Criterion 5). 22 California Energy Commission, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast, February 2022. Annual average growth rates of electricity demand and natural gas per capita demand are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 14, respectively.
23 Ibid.

Page 420 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 71 ends

Therefore, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

B) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 standards and 2022 CALGreen Code. Compliance with 2022 Title 24 standards and 2022 CALGreen Code would ensure the project incorporates energy-efficient building design that would also be consistent with applicable energy policies identified in the General Plan, including Policies 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6, refers to Table 4-5, Consistency with General Plan. Additionally, the project would utilize electricity provided by IID. Per SB 100, IID would achieve at least 60 percent renewable energy by 2030. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts will be less than significant.

Table 4-5
Consistency with the General Plan
Goals/Policies Project Consistency Analysis
General Plan
Sustainability and Natural Environment
Element
Goal 2. Energy. An energy efficient community
that relies primarily on renewable and nonpolluting energy sources.

Policies

2.1 Community development-subdivisions.

When reviewing applications for new subdivisions,
require all residences be oriented along an eastwest access, minimizing western sun exposure, to maximize energy efficiency.

2.3 Alternative energy. Promote the incorporation
of alternative energy generation (e.g., solar, wind,
biomass) in public and private development.

2.5 Construction standards. Consider and
evaluate new construction practices and standards
that increase building energy efficiency.

2.6 Energy performance targets – new
construction. Require new construction to exceed
Title 24 efficiency standards by 15 percent and
incorporate solar photovoltaics.

Consistent. Policy 2.1 requires that homes be oriented along an eastwest access to minimize western sun exposure and maximize energy efficiency. The project accomplishes the intent of Policy 2.1 by having the majority of the streets in an east-west orientation. Due to the nature of circulation design, all east-west orientation is not feasible; additionally, offering home size and configuration options are a preferred attribute to residential neighborhoods in order to accommodate various household needs. Homes that are most exposed to western sun and are in the opposite configuration than what is suggested in Figure 7-1 of the Sustainability-Natural Environment section of the General Plan, are minimized by design, and provide energy efficiency measures including limited window openings on the western elevation, acceptable roof orientations for solar access, and simple roof design conducive to photovoltaic installations. The project layout (site plan) is consistent the Development Standard for new neighborhood streets and lot layouts so at least 80 percent of new homes are oriented with the primary building axis within 20 degrees of an east-west orientation. Per the site plan, east/west access streets are longer than north/south access streets and do not exceed 15% axis. The homes on north/south access streets are oriented less than the 15% axis and are orientated with depth. The project will comply with the most current Title 24 requirements, consistent with Policy 2.2, which include solar and other energy efficiency measures. Along with the requirements of Title 24 and the minimal western exposure, the Sevilla II neighborhoods is consistent with the intent of Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 and 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6.

Page 421 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 72 ends

Goals/Policies Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 standards and 2022 CALGreen Code. Compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure the project incorporates efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, as well as water efficient fixtures and electric vehicles charging infrastructure. The project would install solar-ready roof and use energy efficient appliances. Additionally, the project would install low-flow fixtures, water-efficiency irrigation, and draught tolerant landscape.

Furthermore, the 2022 Title 24 would achieve an increased reduction in energy usage more than 15 percent compared to 2016 Title 24, when the General Plan was adopted. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal and policies of the General Plan.

Source: City of Coachella, General Plan, adopted April 22, 2015.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Page 422 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 73 ends

4.7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) 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? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Page 423 ends

Item 21.

City of Coachella
Sevilla II Tentative Tract Map No. 38557
TTM 38557; CZ 22-05; CUP 372; AR 23-13; EA 22-06
Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 74 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project by Leighton and Associates, Inc. in December 2021; refer to Appendix F, Geotechnical Report.

Discussion
The project site is generally flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 48 to 40 feet below mean sea level. A site visit and geotechnical testing was performed on November 9, 2021, which consisted of six hollow-stem auger borings performed at various locations on the project site.

Bulk samples and ring samples were collected from the borings for lab testing. The native soil throughout the site primarily consists of medium density fine- to medium-grained silty sand with scattered silt and clay laminations. Artificial fill materials were encountered throughout the majority of the site, which is mostly loose silty sand that may be compressible in their current state. Groundwater was encountered in three borings at a depth of approximately 42 feet below ground surface. Historically, groundwater has been measured as high as 44 feet below ground surface at a nearby well, and in 2006 groundwater was encountered on the project site at a depth of 28 feet below ground surface.
a.i)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. Seismically-induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps.

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 (typically 50 feet). According to the applicable

Page 424 ends

Coachella City CouncilMarch 25, 2026

Coachella City Council
March 25, 2026