Agenda packet — Coachella City Council, May 6, 2026 (part 1 of 4)

City Council Chamber
1515 6th Street, Coachella, California
(760) 398-3502  www.coachella.org
AGENDA

OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE

CITY OF COACHELLA

PLANNING COMMISSION
May 06, 2026
6:00 PM
In-Person Meeting
Location:

City Council Chamber
1515 6th Street,
Coachella, CA
If you would like to attend the meeting via Zoom, here is the link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84544257915?pwd=VTdHWitpYVdOUk1NQW8vZ1pqUm0zQT 09 Or One tap mobile : +16694449171,,84544257915#,,,,*380084# Or Telephone:

US: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 845 4425 7915
Passcode: 380084
Spanish: El idioma español está disponible en Zoom seleccionado la opción en la parte de abajo de la pantalla
 Public comments may be received by 12:00 P.M. either in person, via email, telephonically, or via Zoom with a limit of 250 words, or three minutes:
o In Real Time:

If participating in real time via Zoom or phone, during the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” function on your computer, or when using a phone, participants can raise their hand by pressing *9 on the keypad.
o In Writing:

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

Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. All written comments received will be forwarded to the City Council and entered into the record.
 The live stream of the meeting may be viewed online by accessing the city's website at www.coachella.org, and clicking on the "Watch Council Meetings" tab located on the home page, and then clicking on the "live" button. 1 CALL TO ORDER:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

ROLL CALL:

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

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2026
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

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

NON-HEARING ITEMS:

PUBLIC HEARING CALENDAR (QUASI-JUDICIAL):

2. A Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. PC 2026-14 of the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella: Request for conditional approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of an 85-foot high wireless communication facility designed as a mono-palm on a 2,500 square foot leased space located at 49640 Oates Lane (APN 603-300-013). The proposed project includes a waiver request for the design and/or other requirements and restrictions set forth in Section 17.86.090 of the Coachella Municipal Code, and determining that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversation of Small Structures and 15332, In-fill Development. Applicant: APC Towers, David Elliott, Eukon Group.

3. A Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. PC 2026-16 of the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella:

Request for Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 401 to allow liquor sales (ABC Type 40, OnSale Beer) within an existing 1,625 square-foot commercial suite located at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street (APN 603-281-044); and determining that the proposed project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Applicant:

Salvador Islas

4. A Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. PC 2026-09 of the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella:

Request for Planning Commission recommendation of approval to the City Council of Change of Zone, CZ 20-01, from MH to MS and CG; and conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 39721; CUP 324 to allow commercial cannabis uses; CUP 325 to allow drive through restaurant; CUP 326 to allow service station and mini-mart; AR 20-04 to approve site design, architecture and signage (billboard) and DA 25-02 to approve a Development Agreement, for 43± acres of land located at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and SR 86 (APNs 763-330- 013, 763-330-018, and 763-330-029), and recommending certification of the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of 2 Overriding Considerations, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Applicant: Empire Airport LLC.

INFORMATIONAL:

ADJOURNMENT:

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

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

PLANNING COMMISSION
6 de Mayo de 2026
6:00 PM
Lugar de la reunión en
persona:

Cámara del
Ayuntamiento
1515 6th Street,
Coachella, CA
Si desea asistir a la reunión a través de Zoom, aquí está el enlace:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84544257915?pwd=VTdHWitpYVdOUk1NQW8vZ1pqUm0z QT09
O one tap mobile: Us: +16699006833,, 84544257915#,,,,* 380084# US O teléfono:

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

En vivo:

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

Por escrito:

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

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

JURAMENTO A LA BANDERA:

PASE DE LISTA:

ROTACIÓN DE PRESIDENTE Y VICEPRESIDENTE:

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

APROBACION DE LAS ACTAS:

1. Borrador de las Actas de la Comisión de Planificación - 18 de Marzo de 2026.

COMUNICACIONES ESCRITAS:

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

INFORMES Y SOLICITUDES:

SESIÓN DE ESTUDIO
PUNTOS QUE NO SON DE AUDIENCIA:

CALENDARIO DE AUDIENCIAS PÚBLICAS (CUASI-JUDICIAL):

2. Audiencia Pública para Considerar la Resolución Núm. PC 2026-14 de la Comisión de Planificación de la Ciudad de Coachella: Solicitud de aprobación condicional del Permiso de Uso Condicional para la construcción de una instalación de telecomunicaciones inalámbricas de 85 pies de altura, diseñada como una palmera monopolo, en un espacio arrendado de 2,500 pies cuadrados ubicado en 49640 Oates Lane (APN 603-300-013). El proyecto propuesto incluye una solicitud de exención de los requisitos de diseño y/u otros requisitos y restricciones establecidos en la Sección 17.86.090 del Código Municipal de Coachella, y la determinación de que el proyecto propuesto está exento de la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA), conforme a las Directrices de CEQA, Sección 15303 – Nueva Construcción o Conversión de Estructuras Pequeñas, y 15332 – Desarrollo de Relleno Urbano.

Solicitante: APC Towers, David Elliott, Eukon Group.

3. Audiencia Pública para Considerar la Resolución Núm. PC 2026-16 de la Comisión de Planificación de la Ciudad de Coachella: Solicitud de aprobación condicional del Permiso de Uso Condicional Núm. 401 para permitir la venta de bebidas alcohólicas (ABC Tipo 40, cerveza para consumo en el lugar) dentro de una unidad comercial existente de 1,625 pies cuadrados ubicada en 49915 Cesar Chavez Street (APN 603-281- 044); y la determinación de que el proyecto propuesto está categóricamente exento de la revisión bajo la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA), conforme a la Sección 15301 (Instalaciones Existentes) de las Directrices Estatales de CEQA.
5 Solicitante: Salvador Islas.

4. Audiencia Pública para Considerar la Resolución Núm. PC 2026-09 de la Comisión de Planificación de la Ciudad de Coachella: Solicitud para que la Comisión de Planificación recomiende al Concejo Municipal la aprobación de un Cambio de Zonificación, CZ 20-01, de MH a MS y CG; y la aprobación condicional del Mapa Tentativo de Parcelas 39721; CUP 324 para permitir usos comerciales de cannabis; CUP 325 para permitir un restaurante con servicio para autos (drive-through); CUP 326 para permitir una estación de servicio y tienda de conveniencia; AR 20-04 para aprobar el diseño del sitio, la arquitectura y la señalización (valla publicitaria), y DA 25-02 para aprobar un Acuerdo de Desarrollo, para aproximadamente 43 acres de terreno ubicados en la esquina noroeste de Airport Boulevard y la SR 86 (APNs 763-330-013, 763-330-018 y 763-330-029), así como recomendar la certificación del Informe de Impacto Ambiental del Desarrollo del Parque Empresarial del Aeropuerto de Coachella (SCH Núm. 2023040106), incluyendo determinaciones y una Declaración de Consideraciones Predominantes, en conformidad con la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California.

Solicitante: Empire Airport LLC.

INFORMATIVO:

SE SUSPENDE LA SESIÓN:

ESTA REUNIÓN ES ACCESIBLE PARA PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD Los paquetes completos de la agenda están disponibles para inspección pública en el Departamento de Servicios de Desarrollo en 53-990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, y en el sitio web de la ciudad www.coachella.org.
6 7
City Council Chamber
1515 6th Street, Coachella, California
(760) 398-3502  www.coachella.org

MINUTES

OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE

CITY OF COACHELLA

PLANNING COMMISSION
March 18, 2026
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Commissioner Torres.

ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present: X Chairperson Murillo
X Vice Chairperson Fonseca
X Commissioner Lara
X Commissioner Ordorica
X Commissioner Torres
Staff Present: *Kendra Reif, Community Development Director. *Lizzandro Diaz, Building Official
*Anahi Fernandez, Management Analyst
*Jason Stevens, Information Technology Manager.

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

MOTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TORRES SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ORDORICA TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Torres, Commissioner Ordorica, Commissioner Lara, Vice Chairperson Fonseca, Chairperson Murillo.

NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None.
8 Item 1.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 4, 2026.

MOTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TORRES SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LARA. TO

APPROVE THE MINUTES VICE CHAIR FONSECA CALLED ATTENTION TO A DISCRIPTENCY IN THE DATE WITHIN THE MINUTES WHICH REFLECTED MARCH 18 2026 ON THE CITY WEBSITE

AGENDA, UPON REVIEW, THE CORRECT MEETING DATE OF THE MINUTES WAS CONFIRMED TO BE MARCH 4 2026. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED WAS PUT TO A VOTE AND DULY CARRIED.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Torres, Commissioner Ordorica, Commissioner Lara, Vice Chairperson Fonseca, Chairperson Murillo.

NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

Public Comments Closed at 6:05 PM by Chair Murillo.

REPORTS AND REQUESTS:

NON-HEARING ITEMS:

2. Nomination for the positions of Planning Commission Chairperson and Planning Commission Vice Chairperson.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TORRES AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ORDORICA TO SELECT COMMISSIONER LARA AS PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Lara, Commissioner Ordorica, Commissioner Torres, Chairperson Murillo.

NOES: Vice Chairperson Fonseca.

ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None.
9 Item 1.

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LARA AND SECOND BY COMMISSION TORRES TO SELECT COMMISSIONER TORRES AS PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIRPERSON.

Approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Commissioner Lara, Commissioner Ordorica, Commissioner Torres, Vice NOES: Chairperson Fonseca, Chairperson Murillo.

ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None.

3. Annual Progress Report (APR) for Housing and General Plan Implementation Update.

Anahi Fernandez, Management Analyst, gave a brief presentation for the item. A copy of the presentation is on file with the Planning Division.

PUBLIC HEARING CALENDAR (QUASI-JUDICIAL):

INFORMATIONAL:
* Our former City Manager, Bill Patterson, officially retired effective yesterday. We now have an Interim City Manager, Mr. Gabriel Gonzalez. The city has actively begun the process of recruiting a permanent City Manager. In the meantime, Mr. Gonzalez will serve in this role until a permanent replacement is selected.
* The city is hosting the Mariachi Festival this weekend, information will be provided upon request.

ADJOURNMENT: 6:28 P.M.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY,

KENDRA REIF

PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
Complete Agenda Packets are available for public inspection in the Development Services Department at 53-990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, California, and on the City’s website www.coachella.org.
10 Item 1.

STAFF REPORT
5/6/2026
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Anahi Fernandez, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution No. PC2026-14: Request for conditional approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of an 85-foot high wireless communication facility designed as a mono-palm on a 2,500 square foot leased space located at 49640 Oates Lane (APN 603-300-013). The proposed project includes a waiver request for the design and/or other requirements and restrictions set forth in Section 17.86.090 of the Coachella Municipal Code, and determining that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversation of Small Structures and 15332, Infill Development. Applicant: APC Towers, David Elliott, Eukon Group.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. PC2026-14 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 399, a request for the construction of an 85-foot mono-palm wireless communication facility pursuant to height waiver request, and determining that the project is compliant with Section 15303 and 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant, APC Towers, is requesting the
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 399 for
the installation, operation, and maintenance of a
wireless communications facility located at
49640 Oates Lane (APN 603-300-013). The
proposed facility will consist of an 85-foot high
Mono-Palm (monopole designed to look like a
palm tree) on a 2,500 square foot (SF) leased
space within an existing truck storage yard.

Figure 1 shows the proposed location.

The project requires the approval of Conditional
Use Permit No. 399, pursuant to Sections 17.86
and 17.74 of the Coachella Municipal Code. In
addition, the applicant is requesting a waiver for
11 Item 2.
the proposed height of the mono-palm. Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Code 17.86.070 (G), Stand-alone wireless facilities may not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in height unless a waiver request is granted by the Planning Commission. The applicant conducted a colocation analysis, and no existing wireless towers or structures can accommodate the equipment at the required height, configuration, or location. The applicant finds the height waiver request essential to maintain reliable wireless coverage in the area. The applicant further claims adherence to the City of Coachella’s current regulations has the effect of prohibiting wireless service, and thus, a waiver is appropriate.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The project site is located north of the Avenue 50 and Oats Lane/Peter Rabbit Lane intersection.

The proposed project site has an existing truck storage yard that was previously approved under Architectural Review No. 16-04 in 2016 and includes a security trailer and site improvements for the parcel including an 8-foot high slump-stone wall, two gated entries, sidewalk, truck parking stalls and perimeter landscaping. If approved, Condition of Approval No. 38 of Resolution No. 2026-14 will require the applicant and/or property owner to address any existing code violations on the property and either remove or legalize all unpermitted structures and complete any required improvements.

The project site is bounded by an existing automotive repair services use to the north, an existing storage yard to the south, vacant land to the east, and an existing RV storage use to the west. Table 1 provide the existing conditions, including General Plan and Zoning designations for the site and its surroundings.

Table 1
General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Existing Uses
General Plan Zoning Surrounding Existing
Uses
Site: Industrial District Manufacturing Service (M-S) Storage Yard North: Industrial District Manufacturing Service (M-S)
Automotive Repair
Services
South: Industrial District Manufacturing Service (M-S) Storage Yard East:

Suburban
Neighborhood Suburban Neighborhood (S-N) Vacant
West: Industrial District Manufacturing Service (M-S) RV Storage

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The Project site is located in an Industrial District, and further located in Subarea 8 as designated in the General Plan.

The Industrial District is envisioned to be made up of larger lots and buildings that support concentrations of business activity, with supporting retail and office uses. Projects are to be served by major City streets, and provide internal roadways that provide for internal circulation. Buildings are to be one- and two-story structures, with simple, attractive facades that face the street. Building 12 Item 2.
materials should consist of masonry or concrete, and larger buildings should include multiple simple masses. Industrial Districts are intended to be separate from the City’s neighborhoods and districts. Subarea 8 is envisioned as a transforming area that will create employment opportunities with a variety of industrial and office uses that take advantage of SR 86 and railroad proximity.

The Project conforms with the vision and policies established for the Industrial District and Subarea 8. It will provide essential utility infrastructure that supports existing and future industrial and commercial uses within the Subarea. The facility will improve wireless coverage and service reliability in an area designated for industrial development and infrastructure expansion. The project provides necessary infrastructure that supports industrial operations and economic activity.

General Plan Consistency:

The project site is within the Industrial District land use designation, which accommodates light, heavy, and general industrial uses. The proposed project will improve communication infrastructure. The project is consistent with the Goals and Objectives identified in the General Plan Infrastructure and Public Services Element, particularly Goal No. 6, which promotes easy access to quality internet services, modern telecommunication services, and reliable energy throughout the City.

CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING
The proposed project site for CUP 399 has a zoning designation of M-S (Manufacturing Service).

Wireless communication facilities are permitted pursuant to approval of a Conditional Use Permit application in the M-S zone. Municipal Code Section 17.86.010 outlines the requirements for placement, design, and screening criteria to regulate wireless communication facilities to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, and quality of life in the City. Additionally, pursuant to Section 17.86.090 of the Municipal Code upon approval of a waiver request the proposed 85-foot height would be allowed, pursuant to the Planning Commission granting the waiver request. With the imposition of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project is generally consistent with the intent and purpose of the “Manufacturing Service” (M-S) zone as articulated in Section 17.30 of the C.M.C.

SITE UTILIZATION
The proposed wireless communication facility will be located within a 2,500 square foot leased area of the existing truck storage yard. The site is more than 150 feet from the nearest residential uses to the east. The equipment shelter includes the construction of a 6-foot high split-face block wall around all four sides of the equipment cabinets. The southern elevations in Figure 2 below show the site design, height, and antenna placement.
13 Item 2.

Figure 2: South Elevation
Landscape will be planted to meet current City landscape requirements as shown on Figure 3 below. The design includes two date palm trees adjacent to the wireless tower, shrubs planted along the perimeter of the block wall, and crushed rock used as ground cover. The applicant is also required to prepare and submit a detailed landscaping plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Figure 3 below is the submitted landscape plan for the project.

The landscape plan has also been included in Attachment 1, Exhibit B.

Figure 3: Landscape Plan
14 Item 2.

PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR CUP NO. 399:

The proposed project increases existing communication infrastructure to expand service to wireless customers in the vicinity. This project is consistent with the Goals and Objectives identified in the General Plan Infrastructure and Public Services Element, because Goal No. 6 promotes easy access to quality internet services, modern telecommunication services, and reliable energy throughout the City.

The Mono-Palm design provides a stealthing solution that integrates the facility into its surrounding environment. Additionally, the proposed project is in conformance with the City of Coachella Zoning Ordinance as specified in Section 17.86 of the Zoning Code.

3. Consideration is to be given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density, to the availability of public facilities and utilities, to harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character, to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets, and to any other relevant impact of the development. 15 Item 2.

No new construction or modification to the already existing infrastructure and no additional points of access to the private property. Access to the wireless communication facility will be minimal as it is an un-manned facility. Additionally, the proposed project is required to comply with the standard conditions of approval applicable to this Conditional Use Permit request.

The proposed wireless communication facility provides an essential public utility function by improving wireless network coverage, capacity, and reliability for residents, businesses, and emergency response services in the surrounding area. The facility is located within an existing industrial storage yard and is designed as a stealth monopalm structure to reduce visual impacts and maintain compatibility with surrounding industrial and utility-related uses. In addition, the project’s Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report demonstrates that the facility will operate in compliance with applicable Federal Communication Commission (FCC) radiofrequency exposure standards, ensuring protection of public health and safety. Any potential impacts associated with the project are outweighed by the substantial public benefit of expanded and improved telecommunications service.

5. The proposed use will include vehicular approaches to the property designed for reasonable minimal interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.

The proposed use will include only limited vehicular access associated with maintenance and servicing of the wireless facility. The project does not include permanent staffing or customer visits. Vehicular access will utilize existing driveway improvements serving the approved truck storage yard, and no new access points to public streets are proposed. The project will operate in a manner consistent with existing industrial site access patterns and the intent of the Manufacturing Service (M-S) zone.

PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR WAIVER REQUEST:

1. Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Code Section 17.86.090, the Applicant submitted a height waiver request. The applicant submitted its request via a letter dated October 8, 2025. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that a waiver is necessary pursuant to section

17.86.090. The applicant claims the proposed 85-foot wireless communication facility is necessary to ensure adequate wireless coverage and capacity within the service area. The applicant submitted a radio frequency propagation map demonstrating that the height of 85 feet significantly provides wider coverage and reliability compared to a facility limited to 55 feet (Attachment 4). Verizon’s engineering analysis confirms that a 55-foot cell tower would result in significant signal loss, coverage degradation, and potential service interruptions. The applicant claims adherence to the City of Coachella’s current regulations has the effect of prohibiting wireless service, and thus, a waiver is appropriate. 16 Item 2.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City of Coachella has determined that the proposed project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 and 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This exemption applies to projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the following conditions; (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project satisfies the above criteria and as such, no environmental review is required.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:

A public hearing notice for the Project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on April 26, 2026, and a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property on April 22, 2026, pursuant to Section 17.70.050(F) of the Coachella Municipal Code. At the time of issuance of this staff report, staff had not received public comments on this application.

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve Resolution No. PC 2026-14 Conditional Use Permit No. 399 with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff.
2) Approve Resolution No. PC 2026-14 Conditional Use Permit No. 399 with modification to the proposed findings and conditions as recommended by Staff. 3) Deny Resolution No. PC 2026-14.
4) Continue these items and provide staff and the applicant with direction.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S):

Staff recommends Alternative #1.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. PC 2026-14 for CUP No. 399
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for CUP No. 399
Exhibit B: Architectural Exhibits

2. Project Narrative and Waiver Request

3. Photo Simulations

4. Propagation Map
17 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967530.1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 399 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 85-FOOT HIGH
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS “MONO-PALM” FACILITY ON A 2,500 SQUARE-FOOT LEASED AREA LOCATED AT 49640 OATES LANE
(APN 603-300-013), AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15303 AND 15332 .

WHEREAS, APC Towers has filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 399 to construct an 85-foot high wireless communications facility proposed on 2,500 square feet of leased space within a truck storage yard located at 49640 Oates Lane (APN 603-300-013); and WHEREAS, the Project is permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.74 of the Coachella Municipal Code, and the attendant applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 399 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 conditional use relates properly to streets which are designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and staff determined that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction of Small Structures and Section 15332, Infill Development Project; an
WHEREAS, the conditions as stipulated by the City are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella held a duly noticed and published Public Hearing wherein the public was offered an opportunity to testify regarding the project and the Commission considered the Conditional Use Permit as presented by the applicant, adopting the finding, conditions, and staff recommendations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella, California, does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 399 with the findings 18 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967530.1
Resolution No. PC2026-14

Page 2 ends

listed below and subject to the Conditions of Approval for the APC Towers project contained in “Exhibit A” and made a part herein.

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the Planning Commission as fully set forth in this resolution.

Section 2. CEQA Findings. The Planning Commission finds the Project categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15303 and 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The Project is exempt under Section 15303 because it consists of the construction and operation of a small new utility structure, specifically an 85-foot wireless communications facility (monopalm) and associated ground equipment within a 2,500-square-foot leased area of an industrial site. Accordingly, the Project falls within the Class 3 exemption.

The Project is exempt under Section 15332 because it consists of in-fill development within city limits on a project site of less than five acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project site is located within an existing industrial property in the Manufacturing Service (M-S) zone and is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and zoning regulations. The site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, and the Project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Accordingly, the Project falls within the Class 32 exemption.

Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact, as it involves a single telecommunications facility and does not contribute to significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or public services. The Project site is developed and does not contain environmentally sensitive resources. The Project would not impact scenic resources within a state-designated scenic highway, is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as no such resources are present on or near the site.

Staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval of the Project.

Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings:

1. The proposed use will not be in conflict with, but will be in harmony with and in accordance with the objectives of the General Plan in that the project is generally consistent with the goals, policies and implementing actions of the Coachella General Plan. The proposed project increases existing communication infrastructure to expand service to wireless customers in the vicinity. This project is consistent with the Goals and Objectives identified in the General Plan 19 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967530.1
Resolution No. PC2026-14

Page 3 ends

Infrastructure and Public Services Element because Goal No. 6 promotes easy access to quality internet services, modern telecommunication services, and reliable energy throughout the City.

2. The proposed use will be located, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and shall not change the essential character of the same area. The Mono-Palm design provides a stealthing solution that integrates the facility into its surrounding environment. Additionally, the proposed project is in conformance with the City of Coachella Zoning Ordinance as specified in Section 17.86 of the Zoning Code.

Access to the telecommunication facility will be minimal as it is an un-manned facility.

Additionally, the proposed project is required to comply with the standard conditions of approval applicable to this Conditional Use Permit request.

4. Staff has determined that the proposed projects qualify for CEQA exemptions under Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and 15332, In-fill Development, of the California Environmental Quality Act which states the following: the proposed project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site is within the city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. The project site does not have any value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species because the site is fully developed as a public commercial center. Migratory birds and burrowing owls do not nest near due to full development of the commercial center and recreational activities at the commercial center.

Approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Planning Commission is required to acknowledge the CEQA exemption.

Section 4: Waiver Request Findings:

17.86.090. The applicant claims the proposed 85-foot wireless communication facility is necessary to ensure adequate wireless coverage and capacity within the service area. The applicant submitted a radio frequency propagation map demonstrating that the height of 85 feet significantly provides wider coverage and reliability compared to a facility limited to 55 feet. Verizon’s engineering analysis confirms that a 55-foot cell tower would result in significant signal loss, coverage degradation, and potential service interruptions. The 20 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967530.1
Resolution No. PC2026-14

Page 4 ends

applicant claims adherence to the City of Coachella’s current regulations has the effect of prohibiting wireless service, and thus, a waiver is appropriate.

Section 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at [enter address here]. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2026.
___________________________________
Eva Lara, Chairperson
Coachella Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Best, Best, and Krieger
City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF COACHELLA )

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. PC2026-14, was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella, California, held on the 6th day of May 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
21 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967530.1
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Secretary
22 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 399 APC TOWERS
General Conditions

1. Conditional Use Permit No. 399 is approved for two years from the date of approval unless an extension of time is requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission.

A building permit for each CUP and diligent pursuit of construction shall vest this conditional use permit.

2. Two Date Palm trees of a minimum 20 to 30 foot brown trunk height shall be planted adjacent to the proposed wireless tower. The location of the Date Palm trees may be outside of the leased area.

3. The construction shall be in conformance with the plans submitted and conditions imposed herein for Conditional Use Permit No. 399. This shall include the materials and colors shown on the approved plans.

4. The cell tower shall consist of a stealth monopalm structure with a maximum height of 85- feet. The pole structure shall be designed and painted to mimic a tree trunk.

5. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The Landscape Plan shall denote the botanical name, common name, legend, plant distribution, canopy spread and amount of material to be planted.

6. Each facility and site which contains trees, foliage or other landscaping elements, whether or not used as stealthing, shall be maintained in good condition at all times, and the owner or operator of the facility shall be responsible for replacing any damaged, dead or decayed landscaping as soon as practicable, and in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

7. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Planning Division and landscaping shall be in place before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.

8. A landscape and maintenance agreement shall be in place between the operator and their successor prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

9. River rock or decorative gravel shall be installed as ground cover.

10. The facility shall be enclosed by a six-foot split face block wall to ensure restricted access to the facility.

11. The property owner shall remove all unpermitted uses of the site that include the unpermitted storage of vehicles and materials, or shall complete all required entitlement approvals necessary to have the project come into compliance, prior to building final of the project.

12. The applicant, or subsequent owners, shall bear all cost associated with relocation or removal of any of the telecommunication facilities hereby approved.

13. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Department. 23 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A
Engineering inspections shall be required during the installation and final stage.

14. Improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for Engineering plan check prior to issuance of permits. Plans shall clearly indicate existing and proposed facilities and identify/avoid conflicts. The applicant is directed to contact City Building staff to obtain existing improvement plans for utilities within the right-of way.

15. The applicant shall complete all utility clearances with the Coachella Valley Water District.

16. Submit a grading/site improvement plan for Building, Planning and Engineering Department plan check and approval.

17. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceedings against the City or its officers, agents or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval under this chapter. The applicant shall further defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any damages, liabilities, claims, suits, or causes of auction of any kind or form, whether for personal injury, death or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities or performance of the applicant, its agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors, pursuant to the approval issues by the City.

18. The applicant shall pay all necessary plan check, permit and inspection fees. Fees will be determined when plans are submitted to the City Engineering Department for plan check.

19. All proposed easement documents shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying and mapping and shall be submitted for engineering plan check and shall be recorded with the County prior to Issuance of permits.

20. The project shall conform to the City of Coachella Municipal Code.

21. The electrical service and all other utilities to the project shall be installed underground in accordance with the General Plan.

22. All existing and future wireless facilities shall meet all applicable FCC emissions and exposure standards for electromagnetic (EM) radiation, and all required notices and signs shall be posted on site as required by the FCC and PUC.

23. If the proposed wireless communication facility site is capable of accommodating a collocated facility upon the same site, the owner or operator of the existing facility shall allow another carrier to co-locate its facilities and equipment thereon, provided the parties can mutually agree upon reasonable terms and conditions. All co-located facilities upon the site shall be architecturally coordinated and “stealthed” consistent with each other.

24. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain all applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies as required:
• Riverside County Fire Department
• City of Coachella Planning Department
24 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A
• City of Coachella Engineering Department
• City of Coachella Public Works Department
• City of Coachella Building Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD)
• Coachella Water Authority
• Imperial Irrigation District
• State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
• Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
• Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
• Federal Aviation Agency (FAA)
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to City approval.

25. The applicant shall bear the cost, of all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City’s inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.

26. All grading shall conform to the recommendation contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist.

27. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the requirements of Chapter

15.40 of the City of Coachella Municipal Code, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP), Fugitive Dust Control Plan and the provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.

28. The applicant shall pay the City’s established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.

29. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s).

30. The applicant shall submit a concrete mix design for approval of the City’s Building Official. The applicant shall not schedule construction operation until mix design is approved.

31. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision.

32. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code and applicable State of California Business and Professions 25 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A
Code.

33. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.

34. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked “Record Drawing,” “As-Built” or “As Constructed” and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as-built conditions. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as-built conditions.

However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said “As-Built” conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal.

35. No cables, conduit or other equipment on the monopalm tower pole shall be visible.

36. All electrical work for the proposed antennas shall be contained within the monopalm tower cavity.

37. The panel antennas shall be mounted securely to the monopalm tower. All antennas and antenna arrays shall be painted to match the faux design screening material shall be approved by the Design and Department Director.

38. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant and/or Property Owner shall address all existing code violations on the subject property, including but not limited to unpermitted structures, uses, or improvements. All such structures and uses shall either be removed or legalized through the appropriate planning and building permit processes, subject to review, approval, and discretion of the Development Services Department.

Maintenance

39. All facilities, including antennae, mounts, wires, conduit, lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, poles and ancillary equipment, shall be maintained by the owner or operator in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as practicable so as to maintain the facility’s original appearance and to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight, All trash, debris, litter and graffiti shall be removed by owner/operator within forty-eight (48) hours following notification from the City.

40. The owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect the site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this chapter. Further, the Planning Director, or designee, may, upon providing reasonable advance notice to the owner or operator, conduct an inspection of a facility to verify compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 26 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A

41. The wireless telecommunication facility operators are required to notify the City of Coachella's Planning Division within sixty (60) days of any change of ownership of the facility.

42. Contact information for the owner or operator, in case of an emergency, fire, or report of any damage, destruction, or vandalism, must be posted in a conspicuous location on the outside of the wireless facility. The materials used must be of weather resistant composition.

Abandonment and Removal

43. Where the owner or operator intends to abandon the wireless communication facility or portion thereof, the owner or operator shall notify the City by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations and the date the facility shall be removed. The notice shall be given not less than sixty (60) days prior to abandonment. Failure to give notice shall not affect the owner’s or operator’s obligation to remove an abandoned facility.

44. Upon abandonment, revocation, or other lawful order of any federal, state or local agency to terminate facility operations, the owner or operator shall physically remove the facility or terminated/abandoned elements within thirty (30) days following the date of abandonment or termination of use. “physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to:

A. Removal of antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject site;
B. Transportation of the antennae, mounts, equipment cabinets and security barriers to an appropriate repository;
C. Restoring the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the Planning Director.

45. The Planning Director may stay the requirement to remove an abandoned/terminated wireless communication facility upon written request and evidence submitted by the owner or operator that another wireless provider is in reasonable negotiations to acquire and use the wireless communication facility.

46. If an owner/operator of an abandoned wireless communication facility fails to physically remove the facility and all related equipment within the time frames set forth herein, the City may do so at the owner/operators expense.

47. The owner/operator shall submit a lighting plan during plan check for the installation of lighting around the equipment enclosure, including the area between the enclosure and the restroom structure
Engineering Department
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING PLANS or ISSUANCE OF ENGINEERING PERMITS:
27 Item 2.

Resolution No. PC2026-14 EXHIBIT A
PRECISE GRADING:

48. A precise grading/improvement plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, showing building footprints, pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements, and all other pertinent information shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

49. Garden wall permits shall be required for wall construction. The maximum height of any wall shall be limited to six (6) feet as measured from an average of the ground elevations on either side.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS:

50. Applicant shall construct appurtenant roadway components such as, but not limited to:
commercial Driveway approach, paved street for missing gap from existing street to propose Driveway to the satisfaction of City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first COO.

PRIOR TO RELEASE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS/ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:

51. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, all public improvements, including landscaping and lighting of the retention basins, and landscaped areas along the exterior streets, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An engineering final inspection is required. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, such plans, once approved, shall be given to the city on compact disk in AutoCad format. All off-site and on-site improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of improvements for maintenance by the City.

Riverside County Fire Department

52. A deferred submittal to the Riverside County Fire Department for the diesel generator is required.

53. A Fire Department Knox box will be required upon full submittal. 28 Item 2.

Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 an SFC Communications, Inc. Company CA-4009 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 REV DATE DESCRIPTION SUBMITTALS A 07/01/25 90% ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY: FG GD RB ZONING DRAWINGS IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. UTILITIES CHECKED BY: A&E CHECKED BY: 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 T-1 B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTS D 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS TITLE SHEET SITE NUMBER: CA-4009 SITE NAME: STARFRUIT PROJECT: APC TOWERS SITE TYPE:MONOPALM SITE ADDRESS: 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 SHEET INDEX APPROVALS VICINITY MAP AERIAL VIEW DRIVING DIRECTIONS SITE INFORMATION CODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT TEAM GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET DESCRIPTION T-1 TITLE SHEET LS-2 SURVEY DETAIL A-2 EXISTING/DEMO COMPOUND PLAN A-3 ANTENNA PLAN AND SCHEDULE A-4 ELEVATIONS A-1 REVAAAABD SAQ MANAGER: PROJECT MANAGER: ZONING VENDOR: LEASING VENDOR: ZONING MANAGER: PROPERTY OWNER: APPROVED BY: DATE: APC OPERATIONS: THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS & AUTHORIZE THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE ZONING DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT & MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS. APC PROPOSES TO INSTALL A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. THE SCOPE WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING: UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF CALIFORNIA (800) 422-4133 WWW.CALIFORNIA811.ORG CALL 2-14 WORKING DAYS UTILITY NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THIS FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE. NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. IF CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS CONDITIONS IN FIELD, EITHER UNFORESEEN OR IN SOME MANNER IN CONFLICT WITH THESE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF SUCH CONDITIONS IN WRITING AND SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE ANY WORK DONE OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTIONAL PERMITTED PLANS IS DONE AT CONTRACTORS OWN RISK. FOR "SPECIAL INSPECTIONS" SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO CBC SECTION 1704.3, SEE SHEET T-4, "STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS" SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME. FULL SIZE = 24”x36”. ANY OTHER SIZE PRINT IS NOT ORIGINAL SCALE. ALL INDICATED DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENT OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS: FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION, AND IS EXEMPTED FROM ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTION 11B-203.5. THIS FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISIT THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE. NO SANITARY SEWER SERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED. 1. 2025 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2. 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 3. 2025 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE 4. 2025 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 5. 2025 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 6. 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 7. ANY LOCAL BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS 8. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES 9. ANSI / TIA-222 STRUCTURAL CODE 10. NFPA 780 - LIGHTING PROTECTION CODE SITE SITE PROJECT MANAGER: APC TOWERS 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 CONTACT: ABIGAIL JOHNSON PHONE: (919) 346-8799 EMAIL: [email protected] RF ENGINEER: - SITE ACQUISITION: ZONING: EUKON GROUP 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: JERRY AMBROSE PHONE: (805) 637-7407 EMAIL: [email protected] A&E CONTACT: EUKON GROUP 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: RICH BRUNET PHONE: (949) 899-5597 EMAIL: [email protected] CONSTRUCTION: - TELEPHONE COMPANY: TWC POWER COMPANY: IID CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II-B OCCUPANCY GROUP: U PARCEL NUMBER: 603-300-013 ZONING DISTRICT: TBD ZONING JURISDICTION: CITY OF COACHELLA LONGITUDE (NAD 83): 116° 10' 36.14" W LATITUDE (NAD 83): 33° 41' 13.13" N COUNTY: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER: JULIA MOLINAR TOWER CO SITE ID: TOWER APP NUMBER: --CA-4009 ADDRESS: TOWER OWNER: RALEIGH, NC 27615 8601 SIX FORKS RD APC TOWERS LEASE AREA: 2500 SQFT 1. HEAD EAST ON KIRK DOUGLAS WAY TOWARD E BARISTO RD 2. TURN LEFT ONTO RAMON RD 3. SLIGHT RIGHT TO MERGE ONTO I-10 E TOWARD INDIO 4. MERGE ONTO I-10 E 5. TAKE EXIT 145 FOR CALIFORNIA 86 S TOWARD BRAWLEY/EL CENTRO 6. CONTINUE ON CA-86 S. DRIVE TO OATES LN IN COACHELLA 7. CONTINUE ONTO CA-86 S 8. TURN RIGHT ONTO AVENUE 50/TYLER ST 9. CONTINUE TO FOLLOW AVENUE 50 10. TURN RIGHT ONTO OATES LN 11. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SITE PLAN DIRECTIONS FROM HARRY REID INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AT 5757 WAYNE PROPOSEDTON BLVD, LAS VEGAS, NV 89119 PHONE: TBD EUKON GROUP 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: JON SILVA PHONE: (714) 393-7963 EMAIL: [email protected] E-1 E-2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN AA SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM PANEL SCHEDULES 33.686981° 116.176706° A-2.1 PROPOSED COMPOUND PLAN E · (1) PROPOSED 85'-0" HIGH MONOPALM · (1) PROPOSED METERING H-FRAME · (1) PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY TRANSFORMER · (2) PROPOSED UTILITY TRENCHES · (1) PROPOSED 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL · (1) NEW KNOX KEY VAULT FOR ACCESS GATE · (12) PROPOSED ANTENNAS ON MONOPALM · (12) PROPOSED RRUS ON MONOPALM · (1) PROPOSED RAYCAP ON MONOPALM · (3) PROPOSED EQUIPMENT CABINETS AT GRADE · (2) PROPOSED H-FRAME WITH CABINETS · (1) PROPOSED EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR AT GRADE · (1) PROPOSED MICROWAVE ON MONOPALM VERIZON WIRELESS SCOPE OF WORK: APC SCOPE OF WORK: SUITE 250 LS-1 SITE SURVEY A CONTACT: [email protected] ABIGAIL JOHNSON (614) 946-0819 LS-3 NOTS A GEN-1 GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS C A-5 EQUIPMENT DETAIL C L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN D LANDSCAPE PLAN DESIGN GRADING PLAN C-1 PROJECT INFORMATION C-2 GRADING NOTES C-3 SITE PLAN & HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C-4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C-5 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-6 EROSION CONTROL DETAIL C-7 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN FFFFFFFF Exhibit B 29 Item 2.
30 Item 2.
31 Item 2.
32 Item 2.

FBR FBR FBR
O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H WV PWR PWR PWR PWR Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 an SFC Communications, Inc. Company CA-4009 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 REV DATE DESCRIPTION SUBMITTALS A 07/01/25 90% ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY: FG GD RB ZONING DRAWINGS IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. UTILITIES CHECKED BY: A&E CHECKED BY: 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 A-1 B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTS D 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SITE PLAN SCALE 30' 0 15' 30' 60' 120' 1"=30'-0" 1 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° NOTES: 1. IF DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLAN DO NOT SCALE CORRECTLY, CHECK FOR REDUCTION OR ENLARGEMENT FROM ORIGINAL PLANS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 3. UTILITY DESIGNS AND ROUTES ARE PRELIMINARY PENDING FINAL DESIGN BY UTILITY PROVIDER. 4. THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A LAND SURVEY. SITE PLAN SECTOR "A" AZIMUTH: 350° SECTOR "B" AZIMUTH: 110° SECTOR "C" AZIMUTH: 230°

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED APC LEASE AREA 1A-2 APN: 603-300-032 APN: 603-300-012 PARENT PARCEL APN: 603-300-013 OATES LN 206'-10" TO CENTER OF TOWER 110'-6" TO CENTER OF TOWER 417'-7"

TO CENTER OF TOWER
10'-10" EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ACCESS GATE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING PEDESTAL EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING BULLBOX DRIVEWAY DIRT EXISTING UTILITY POLE # 1063109D EXISTING UTILITY POLE # 1210446 PROPOSED 2x3 TRAFFIC RATED FIBER HH AT PROPERTY LINE FOR APC (MMP)(PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED UTILITY POLE #1087200D AND PROPOSED POWER P.O.C (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) EXISTING AMERICAN TOWER LEASE SPACE EXISTING TOWER EXISTING OVER HEAD FRONTIER FIBER PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY POWER CONDUITS (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN ROW [APPROX. 117'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED (2) 4" UNDERGROUN FIBER CONDUIT FROM MMP TO PROPOSED 2x3 VAULT IN LEASE AREA [APPROX. 105'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED APC 10' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 33 Item 2.

FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR X P/F P/F P/F P/F P/F P/F P/F P/F P/F X X X X X X X X X FBR

FBR FBR X PWR PWR PWR

PWR PWR

PWR PWR
PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 an SFC Communications, Inc. Company CA-4009 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 REV DATE DESCRIPTION SUBMITTALS A 07/01/25 90% ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY: FG GD RB ZONING DRAWINGS IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. UTILITIES CHECKED BY: A&E CHECKED BY: 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 A-2.1 B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTS D 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS PROPOSED COMPOUND PLAN SCALE 4' 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 1/4"=1'-0" 1 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° NOTES: 1. IF DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLAN DO NOT SCALE CORRECTLY, CHECK FOR REDUCTION OR ENLARGEMENT FROM ORIGINAL PLANS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. PROPOSED COMPOUND PLAN PROPOSED APC METER H-FRAME PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 3'X5' APC COMMUNITY FIBER VAULT 50'-0"
PROPOSED APC LEASE AREA AND CHAIN-LINK FENCE 50'-0" PROPOSED APC LEASE AREA AND CHAIN-LINK FENCE 21'-0" 8'-0" 21'-0" PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS 30KW EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR 4'-6" 30'-0" 14'-10"
4'-0" 11'-0" PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD NEW VERIZON WIRELESS SAFT NI-CAD BATTERY IN NEW CABINET MOUNTED ON A NEW CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS GPS ANTENNA (1 TOTAL) 1'-0" 1'-0" PROPOSED APC 50X50 LEASE AREA [2500SQFT] EXISTING FENCE PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS UNDERGROUND POWER CONDUIT. [APPROX. 22'] PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS POWER CONDUIT [APPROX. 55'] PROPOSED (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT FROM MONOPALM TO VERIZON WIRELESS LEASE AREA PROPOSED APC 85' HIGH MONOPALM PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS SHADE STRUCTURE PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS H-FRAME WITH CABINETS PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS200A ILC/ATS PANEL PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICE LIGHT PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS SINGLE POLE LIGHT SWITCH WITH PHOTOCELL ATTACHED TO CONDUIT SERVICE LIGHT PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE ON PROPOSED H-FRAME PROPOSED VERIZON VERIZON WIRELESS FIBER CONDUIT. [APPROX. 15'] PROPOSED APC 6' HIGH SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL PROPOSED APC (2) 4" UNDERGROUND FIBER CONDUIT FROM MMP TO PROPOSED 2x3 VAULT [APPROX. 105'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) 2'-6" PROPOSED APC DOUBLE ACCESS GATE 8"
10'-11" 9'-1"
4'-7"
9'-2"
NEW CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY TRANSFORMER ON CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED APC NON-EXCLUSIVE VEHICULAR 10' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY - GEN-1 3-4 A-5 NEW RACK MOUNTED RAYCAP 4520 (1 TOTAL) WITHIN NEW EQUIPMENT CABINET FUTURE EQUIPMENT CABINET NEW BASEBAND UNIT 6672 (1 TOTAL) WITHIN NEW EQUIPMENT CABINET 10" 4'-7" PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS METER 8'-4" NEW CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY POWER CONDUITS (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN ROW [APPROX. 117'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) 1'-6" 2'-0" PROPOSED (2) 4" CONDUIT FROM MONOPALM TO FUTURE CARRIER PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS FIBER CONDUIT [APPROX. 48'] 3'-0" NEW KNOX KEY VAULT FOR ACCESS GATE 2'-0" 3'-6" 3'-0" E D D 35
Item 2.

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 A-5
B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE
C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTSD 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS
E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS
F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS EQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE DETAIL SCALE NONE 1 EQUIPMENT DETAIL NOT USED SCALE NONE
3 CONCRETE SLAB DETAIL SCALE NONE4 NOT USED SCALE NONE
2 CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL NOTES: 3" ELEVATION VIEW MIN. 12" MIN. 3" MIN. 18"
TYP.
8"
MIN.
38 Item 2.

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 GEN-1
B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE
C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTSD 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS
E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS
F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS 39 Item 2.

FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR

O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H P/F P/F P/F P/F X X X X

FBR PWR
PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR FBR FBR FBR FBR FBR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 an SFC Communications, Inc. Company CA-4009 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 REV DATE DESCRIPTION SUBMITTALS A 07/01/25 90% ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY: FG GD RB ZONING DRAWINGS IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. UTILITIES CHECKED BY: A&E CHECKED BY: 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPALM TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 E-2 B 08/28/25 RFDS UPDATE C 10/13/25 JX COMMENTS D 12/08/25 PLANING COMMENTS E 01/15/26 FIRE COMMENTS F 01/7/26 ENGINEERING COMMENTS ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SCALE 8' 0 4' 8' 16' 32' 1/8"=1'-0" 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. IF DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLAN DO NOT SCALE CORRECTLY, CHECK FOR REDUCTION OR ENLARGEMENT FROM ORIGINAL PLANS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 3. UTILITY DESIGNS AND ROUTES ARE PRELIMINARY PENDING FINAL DESIGN BY UTILITY PROVIDER. 4. THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A LAND SURVEY. 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° APN: 603-300-032 PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED UTILITY POLE #1087200D AND PROPOSED POWER P.O.C (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY POWER CONDUITS (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN ROW [APPROX. 117'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) EXISTING ACCESS GATE PROPOSED APC 10' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DRIVEWAY PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED APC DOUBLE ACCESS GATE PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT CABINETS ON A NEW CONCRETE PAD (TYP.-3) PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS GPS ANTENNA (1 TOTAL) PROPOSED (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT FROM MONOPALM TO VERIZON WIRELESS LEASE AREA PROPOSED (2) 4" CONDUIT FROM MONOPALM TO FUTURE CARRIER PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS 30Kw EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR PROPOSED APC 85' HIGH MONOPALMPARENT PARCEL APN: 603-300-013 PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS UNDERGROUND POWER CONDUIT. [APPROX. 22'] PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS H-FRAME WITH CABINETS PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICE LIGHT PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS200A ILC/ATS PANEL PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS SINGLE POLE LIGHT SWITCH WITH PHOTOCELL ATTACHED TO CONDUIT SERVICE LIGHT PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESSVERIZON WP GFCI DUPLEX RECEPTACLE ON PROPOSED H-FRAME PROPOSED APC METER H-FRAME PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS METER PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY TRANSFORMER ON CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED VERIZON WIRELESS POWER CONDUIT [APPROX. 55'] PROPOSED APC 50X50 LEASE AREA [2500SQFT] PROPOSED 3'X5' APC COMMUNITY FIBER VAULT NEW KNOX KEY VAULT FOR ACCESS GATE 41 Item 2.

O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H WV OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=10'-0" 10' 0 5' 10' 20' 40' L-1 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED APC LEASE AREA APN: 603-300-032 APN: 603-300-012 PARENT PARCEL APN: 603-300-013 OATES LN EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ACCESS GATE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING PEDESTAL EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING WATER METER IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION EXISTING BULLBOX DRIVEWAY DIRT EXISTING UTILITY POLE # 1063109D EXISTING UTILITY POLE # 1210446 EXISTING AMERICAN TOWER LEASE SPACE EXISTING TOWER EXISTING OVER HEAD FRONTIER FIBER PROPOSED APC 10' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY B 2/6/26 100% ZONING DRAWINGS C 3/11/26 100% ZONING REVISED Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 an SFC Communications, Inc. Company CA-4009 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 REV DATE DESCRIPTION SUBMITTALS A 12/21/25 90% ZONING DRAWINGS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY: mdm RJC ZONING DRAWINGS IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. CHECKED BY: 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM EUKON_AT&T_90CD_MONOPOLE TEMPLATE_V2_11-18-22 SCALE 30' 0 15' 30' 60' 120' 1"=30'-0" 1 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 2 6" X 6" CONCRETE HEADER. SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH. 6" X 6" CONCRETE HEADER. SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH. CRUSHED ROCK SEE LEGEND FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROPOSED 2x3 TRAFFIC RATED FIBER HH AT PROPERTY LINE FOR APC (MMP)(PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED UTILITY POLE #1087200D AND PROPOSED POWER P.O.C (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED UTILITY COMPANY POWER CONDUITS (2) 4" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN ROW [APPROX. 117'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) PROPOSED (2) 4" UNDERGROUN FIBER CONDUIT FROM MMP TO PROPOSED 2x3 VAULT IN LEASE AREA [APPROX. 105'] (PENDING FINAL UTILITY DESIGN) 42 Item 2.

PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT A PUBLIC SERVICE BY YOU DIG DAYS BEFORE TWO WORKING 1-800-227-2600 DIAL TOLL FREE BEFORE YOU DIG CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] NOTE: EARTHWORK NUMBERS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EARTHWORK NUMBERS. PROPERTY INFORMATION • PROPERTY ADDRESS 49640 OATES LANE, COACHELLA, CA 92236 • PROPERTY OWNER JULIA MOLINAR • ASSESSORS ID NUMBER(S) 603-300-013 BASIS OF BEARING INFORMATION BEARING SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA ZONE SIX STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (2011) (EPOCH 2019.25). DETERMINED BY GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM EQUIPMENT ON THE SMARTNET REFERENCE NETWORK. BENCHMARK INFORMATION PROJECT ELEVATIONS ESTABLISHED FROM GPS DERIVED ORTHOMETRIC HEIGHTS BY APPLICATION OF NGS 'GEOID 18' MODELED SEPARATIONS TO ELLIPSOID HEIGHTS DETERMINED BY OBSERVATIONS OF THE 'SMARTNET' REAL TIME NETWORK. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO NAVD88. CIVIL ENGINEER INFORMATION COMPANY WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. CONTACT ERIK WINATA, P.E. ADDRESS P.O. BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 PHONE (626) 890-9649 EMAIL [email protected] GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INFORMATION COMPANY CONTACT ADDRESS PHONE SOILS REPORT REFERENCE C-101/26/26 43 Item 2.

GRADING NOTES APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT A PUBLIC SERVICE BY YOU DIG DAYS BEFORE TWO WORKING 1-800-227-2600 DIAL TOLL FREE BEFORE YOU DIG CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] C-2 CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. ALL DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF COACHELLA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND PROCEDURES AND THE CITY OF COACHELLA STANDARD DRAWINGS AND TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (GREENBOOK), MOST CURRENT EDITIONS AND THESE APPROVED PLANS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT NO EXPENSE TO THE CITY, PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY SAMPLES AND TESTS REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ASSURE THAT THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND SAID SPECIFICATIONS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK AND SHALL MAINTAIN ALL FACILITIES COMPLETE AND UNCOMPLETED UNTIL ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. 4. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS IT AFFECTS EACH UTIILTY INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES AND APPURTENANCES AT NO COST TO THE CITY. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND REVIEW ALL NECESSARY STANDARDS, PLANS, AND SPECIFICATIONS IN DETAIL PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING APPROVED PLANS AND REFERENCED STANDARDS SHALL BE ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES. CONFLICTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR PRIOR TO WORK IN THAT AREA. 6. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN TO BE EXISTING FROM RECENT SURVEY OF THE ENGINEER AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK, CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE A CITY OF COACHELLA PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF COACHELLA (760) 398-5744, 72 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING ANY WORK. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SET UP WITH THE CITY OF COACHELLA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND ALL AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES SHALL BE PRESENT. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL U.S.A., UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT, AT 1-800-227-2600 AND SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE COMMENCMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. 9. OSHA SAFETY ORDERS AND OSHA CONFINED SPACE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED AT ALL TIMES WITHOUT EXCEPTION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL WORK FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY CITY OF COACHELLA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF COACHELLA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 11. QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR ESTIMATE PURPOSES ONLY. NEITHER THE DESIGN ENGINEER NOR THE CITY OF COACHELLA GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO LABOR CODE SECTION 6705 BY SUBMITTING A DETAIL PLAN TO THE CITY ENGINEER SHOWING THE DESIGN OF SHORING, BRACING, SLOPING, OR OTHER PROVISIONS TO BE MADE FOR PROTECTION OF WORKERS FROM THE HAZARD OF CAVING GROUND DURING TRENCH EXCAVATION AND PIPE INSTALLATION THEREIN. THIS PLAN MUST BE PREPARED FOR ALL TRENCHES FIVE FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH. IF THE PLAN VARIES FROM THE SHORING SYSTEM STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS, TITLE 8, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER. A COPY OF THE OSHA EXCAVATION PERMIT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF COACHELLA INSPECTOR PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 13. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WAS OBTAINED BY AVAILABLE RECORDS SEARCH BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER. TO THE BEST OF THE DEISGN ENGINEER'S KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT THOSE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF OTHER UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN, OR IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND OTHER EXISTING FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN. 14. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN BY THE CITY OF COACHELLA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE LOCATION OF, OR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF, ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY, PIPE, OR STRUCTURE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS PROJECT. 15. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TRENCH SAFETY AND CONFINED SPACE ENTRY. 16. SOILS REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF COACHELLA BY A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER WHICH CERTIFIES THAT TRENCH BACKFILL WAS COMPACTED AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ON SITE EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS AND THE CITY OF COACHELLA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 17. ALL REVISIONS TO DRAWINGS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER IN WRITING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 18. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING COMPLETE RECORD OF CHANGES AND SHALL MAKE SUCH RECORD AVAILABLE TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER. THE PRIVATE ENGINEER SHALL PROVIDE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE CITY OF COACHELLA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL SURVEY MONUMENTATION. IF ANY SURVEY MONUMENTS ARE DISTURBED OR DESTROYED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN A LICENSED SURVEYOR TO RE-ESTABLISH AND RECORD THE MONUMENT CHANGE PER STATE LAW. 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT INTERRUPT OR DISTURB ANY UTILITY FACILITY WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM THE UTILITY COMPANIES. WHERE PROTECTION IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE INTEGRITY OF UTILITY FACILITIES (INCLUDING CITY-OWNED UTILITIES). CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND PLACE ALL NECESSARY PROTECTION. CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL NOTES FOR GRADING PLANS 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF COACHELLA, TITLE 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER 2 AND THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 2. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, APPENDIX CHAPTER 33, REGULATING THE EXCAVATION AND GRADING OF LAND AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF COACHELLA AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT, PREPARED BY ____________________, DATED _________________. 3. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKES. RESURVEY RESULTING FROM CARELESS OPERATION SHALL BE BACK-CHARGED TO THE CONTRACTOR. 4. NO GRADING WORK SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT A CITY PERMIT. 5. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY GRADING OPERATION, TO SCHEDULE A PRE-GRADING MEETING AT THE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/OWNER, GRADING CONTRACTOR, DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER, CITY ENGINEER AND THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. 6. THE PERMITTEE OR HIS AGENT SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHEN GRADING IS READY FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS: A. INITIAL INSPECTION. WHEN THE PERMITTEE IS READY TO BEGIN WORK, BUT NOT LESS THAN TWO (2) DAYS BEFORE ANY GRADING OR CLEARING/SHRUBING IS STARTED. B. ROUGH GRADING. WHEN ALL ROUGH GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THIS INSPECTION MAY BE CALLED FOR AT THE COMPLETION OF ROUGH GRADING. C. FINAL INSPECTION. WHEN ALL WORK, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF PROTECTIVE DEVICES HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE AS-GRADED PLAN, PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS, AND THE REQUIRED REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. 7. FILLS SHALL BE COMPLETED THROUGHOUT TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION AS DETERMINED BY ASTM STD NO. D-1557, LATEST EDITION, 5 LAYER METHOD AND CERTIFIED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 8. AREAS TO BE GRADED SHALL BE PROPERLY PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING OF FILL. 9. THE EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES AND CISTERNS SHALL BE REMOVED OR CRUSHED IN PLACE AND BACKFILLED, AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND SOILS ENGINEER. 10. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE QUALITY OF THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR, AND EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL DURING GRADING TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CODES WITHIN HIS PURVIEW. 11. THE DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE CODES WITHIN HIS PURVIEW. 12. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING AND OTHER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PER APPROVED FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN (PM-10). 13. APPROVED PROTECTION MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING GRADING OF PROJECT. 14. PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL, THE DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL CERTIFY TO THE CITY ENGINEER THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN GRADED TO THE LINE AND GRADE SHOWN ON THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS. 15. THE DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL CERTIFY THAT THE GRADES SHOWN ON THE PLANS MEET THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP REQUIREMENTS AND THE CITY OF COACHELLA FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS OR BENCHMARKS NOTED ON THE PLANS OR DISCOVERED IN THE FIELD. REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT SHALL BE DONE BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR LICENSED SURVEYOR ONLY. 17. THE LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE AND THE PERMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED UTILITIES 18 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY WORK. 01/26/26 44 Item 2.

SITE PLAN & HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM 90° SCALE NOTE: 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] SITE PLAN 1 2 C-3 90° SCALE NOTE: 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° 01/26/26 45 Item 2.

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 1 CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] C-4 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180°
315° 0° SCALE NOTE: 01/26/26 46
Item 2.

C-5 EROSION CONTROL PLAN APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1 SCALE NOTE: 90° 135° 45° 270°225° 180° 315° 0° CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, CALL _______ AT ___________. 2. POLLUTION AND EROSION PREVENTION MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS), MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO GRADING. THESE MEASURES, INCLUDING THE PREVENTION OF SEDIMENTATION OR FLOOD DAMAGE, TO OFFSITE PROPERTY SHALL BE ADEQUATE WHETHER OR NOT AN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT IS REQUIRED. 3. ERODED SEDIMENTS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS MUST BE RETAINED ONSITE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE VIA SHEET FLOW, SWALES, AREA DRAINS, NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES, OR WIND. 4. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE FUNCTIONING AT ALL TIMES. IN CASE OF FAILURE, RAPID CONSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY DEVICES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. 5. STOCKPILES OF EARTH AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION-RELATED MATERIALS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BEING TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE BY THE FORCES OF WIND OR WATER. 6. FUELS, OILS, SOLVENTS, AND OTHER TOXIC MATERIALS MUST BE STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LISTING AND ARE NOT TO CONTAMINATE THE SOILS AND SURFACE WATERS. ALL APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE WEATHER. SPILLS MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSED OF IN A PROPER MANNER. SPILLS MAY NOT BE WASHED INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 7. EXCESS OR WASTE CONCRETE MUST BE CONTAINED ONSITE. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO RETAIN CONCRETE WASTES ONSITE UNTIL THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS SOLID WASTE. 8. DEVELOPERS/CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AND BMPS ARE INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONING PROPERLY PER PLAN. PROPER PRECAUTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHEN 50% OR GREATER PROBABILITY OF PREDICTED PRECIPITATION, AND AFTER ACTUAL PRECIPITATION. A CONSTRUCTION SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND INSPECTION LOG SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. 9. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SOLID WASTES MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WIND. 10. SEDIMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS MAY NOT BE TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ROADWAYS MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT SEDIMENTS FROM BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY. ACCIDENTAL DEPOSITIONS MUST BE SWEPT UP IMMEDIATELY AND MAY NOT BE WASHED DOWN BY RAIN OR OTHER MEANS. 11. ANY SLOPES WITH DISTURBED SOILS OR DENUDED OF VEGETATION MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT EROSION BY WIND AND WATER. 12. ALL SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL DEVICES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER EACH RAINSTORM AND BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 13. ALL STORM WATER CAPTURE DEVICES SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES. 14. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE “CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK” (WWW.CASQA.ORG). 15. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING. THE FOLLOWING BMPS AS OUTLINED IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CASQA CONSTRUCTION BMP ONLINE HANDBOOK OR CALTRANS STORMWATER QUALITY HANDBOOKS (CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL), MAY APPLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT (ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL) EROSION CONTROL EC1 – SCHEDULING EC2 – PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATION EC3 – HYDRAULIC MULCH EC4 – HYDROSEEDING EC5 – SOIL BINDERS EC6 – STRAW MULCH EC7 – GEOTEXTILES & MATS EC8 – WOOD MULCHING EC9 – EARTH DIKES AND DRAINAGE SWALES EC10 – VELOCITY DISSIPATION DEVICES EC11 – SLOPE DRAINS EC12 – STREAMBANK STABILIZATION EC13 – RESERVED EC14 – COMPOST BLANKETS EC15 – SOIL PREPARATION\ROUGHENING EC16 – NON-VEGETATED STABILIZATION TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL SE1 – SILT FENCE SE2 – SEDIMENT BASIN SE3 – SEDIMENT TRAP SE4 – CHECK DAM SE5 – FIBER ROLLS SE6 – GRAVEL BAG BERM SE7 – STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING SE8 – SANDBAG BARRIER SE9 – STRAW BALE BARRIER SE10 – STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION SE11 – ACTIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS SE12 – TEMPORARY SILT DIKE SE13 – COMPOST SOCKS & BERMS SE14 – BIOFILTER BAGS WIND EROSION CONTROL WE1 – WIND EROSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT TRACKING CONTROL TC1 – STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EXIT TC2 – STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ROADWAY TC3 – ENTRANCE/OUTLET TIRE WASH NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NS1 – WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES NS2 – DEWATERING OPERATIONS NS3 – PAVING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS NS4 – TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING NS5 – CLEAR WATER DIVERSION NS6 – ILLICIT CONNECTION/DISCHARGE NS7 – POTABLE WATER/IRRIGATION NS8 – VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING NS9 – VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FUELING NS10 – VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE NS11 – PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS NS12 – CONCRETE CURING NS13 – CONCRETE FINISHING NS14 – MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT USE NS15 – DEMOLITION ADJACENT TO WATER NS16 – TEMPORARY BATCH PLANTS WASTE MANAGEMENT & MATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL WM1 – MATERIAL DELIVERY AND STORAGE WM2 – MATERIAL USE WM3 – STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT WM4 – SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL WM5 – SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WM6 – HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT WM7 – CONTAMINATION SOIL MANAGEMENT WM8 – CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT WM9 – SANITARY/SEPTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT WM10 – LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT 01/26/26 47 Item 2.

EROSION CONTROL DETAILS APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] SILT FENCE DETAIL 1 2 3 4 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAIL C-601/26/26 48 Item 2.

SITE PLAN 1 C-7 STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN APPLICANT: ENGINEER: REVISIONS: LICENSER: PROJECT INFORMATION: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER: APC TOWERS STARFRUIT CA-4009 Eukon www.eukongroup.com 65 POST, SUITE 1000 IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 553-8566 8601 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 250 RALEIGH, NC 27615 WWW.APCTOWERS.COM SCALE NOTE:
90° 135° 45°270°225°
180°
315°
0° CIVIL ENGINEER WINATA ENGINEERING, INC. ERIK WINATA, P.E., LEED AP PO BOX 52692 IRVINE, CA 92619-2692 (626) 890-9649 [email protected] CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1 CONSTRUCT 3" AC PAVEMENT OVER 6" CALTRANS CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 2 SAWCUT 2' OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT 3 GRIND 0.1' THICK BY 5' WIDE EXISTING AC PAVEMENT & OVERLAY W/ NEW AC PAVEMENT TO JOIN EXISTING CONDITION CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL NOTES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING OF THE PROPOSED WORK AREA AND RELOCATION COSTS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITH LATERALS SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO PAVING THE STREET SECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, GAS, DRAINAGE, TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, ETC. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGE THAT MAY OCCUR FROM STORM WATER RUNOFF AND/OR DEPOSITION OF DEBRIS FROM ANY AND ALL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHAL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGES TO ON-SITE, OFF-SITE, AND ADJACENT UTILITIES, FACILITIES, AND PROPERTY AND SHALL CARRY SUFFICIENT INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. 4. DEPTH OF BASE MATERIALS AND A.C. PAVING SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE R-VALUE METHOD, DESIGNATED AS TEST NO. 301-F OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL. 5. STREET PAVING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN TWO (2) LIFTS: TOP COURSE 1” THICK (MINIMUM) 1/2” A.C. PG-70-10 (D1) AND BOTTOM COURSE 2” THICK (MINIMUM), 3/4” A.C. PG-70-10 (C2). 6. WHEEL CHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DRAWING S-26 AND ADA REQUIREMENTS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL STREET NAME AND STOP SIGNS CONFORMING TO THE CITY STANDARD DRAWING S-27. 8. ALL MANHOLE COVERS AND WATER VALVE COVERS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE AFTER THE STREETS HAVE BEEN FINAL PAVED PER CITY STDS. 9. ALL PRIVATE STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE STRUCTURAL SECTION DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 10. TRIM (SAWCUT) EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT WHERE NEW PAVING JOINS EXISTING TO FORM A CLEAN, SMOOTH STRAIGHT LINE. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF COACHELLA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 619-398-5744, 72 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING ANY STREET WORK. 12. ALL WORKS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE CITY OF COACHELLA IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (GREEN BOOK) LATEST EDITION AND THESE PLANS. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK AND SHALL MAINTAIN ALL FACILITIES COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE UNTIL ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. 01/26/26 49 Item 2.

EukonGroup
Corporate Offices:
65 Post, Irvine, CA 92618
949-55-EUKON Office
David Elliott, Eukon Group, APC Towers
65 Post Suite 1000,
Irvine CA. 92618
808-489-1191
[email protected]
Date: October 8, 2025
To:

Planning Department
City of Coachella
1515 Sixth Street
Coachella, CA 92236
Project Description: Request for Construction of New Wireless Tower, Height Increase, and Stealthing Waiver for APC Towers and Verizon Wireless Facility Site Address / APN: 49640 Oates Lane/ 603-300-013
Dear Planning Staff,
On behalf of APC Towers and Verizon Wireless, we respectfully submit this project description letter to request approval for the following wireless communication facility modifications at the above-referenced parcel:

1. Construction of a new monopole to relocate off of the existing ATC tower;

2. A height increase from 55 feet to 85 feet for the new structure; and

3. A waiver from the stealthing requirements to allow a non-stealth (naked) monopole, consistent with existing conditions at the site.

These requests are essential to maintain reliable wireless coverage for Verizon customers in the area and are supported by a combination of technical necessity, regulatory compliance, and existing site constraints.

Justification for New Tower Construction on Same Parcel The current Verizon Wireless colocation on the APC Tower, located on this parcel must be decommissioned and removed. As a result, Verizon is unable to remain on the existing coverage and must construct a new monopole to ensure continuity of service in this area.

To maintain existing coverage levels, the new monopole must be sited in close proximity to the current structure. Relocation to a new parcel would result in significant coverage gaps and require the buildout of additional facilities to compensate for the loss—an inefficient and unnecessarily impactful outcome for the City and its residents.

Exhaustion of Co-Location Opportunities
The Eukon Group has conducted a thorough site acquisition and co-location analysis as part of its due diligence process. All viable co-location options within the area have been evaluated and exhausted.

Unfortunately, no existing towers or structures are available that can accommodate Verizon’s equipment at the necessary height, configuration, or location to meet current and future RF coverage and capacity objectives. Further, no existing facilities provide the same network footprint required to maintain seamless service in this portion of the City.

Accordingly, the construction of a new, standalone monopole on the same parcel as the existing facility is the only feasible solution to preserve Verizon’s service in the area.

Attachment 2
50 Item 2.

Page 2 of 2 ends

EukonGroup
Height Increase Justification (From 55’ to 85’)
The proposed 85-foot height is essential to replicate the RF coverage currently provided by the existing tower. Verizon’s engineering analysis confirms that a 55-foot tower would result in significant signal loss, coverage degradation, and potential service interruptions—particularly indoors and at the network’s edge.

Under Coachella Municipal Code Section 17.86.090(A)(1), a waiver is appropriate where adherence to local regulations would have the effect of prohibiting wireless service, as defined by the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).

Stealthing Waiver Justification
While Section 17.86.080(C) of the Coachella Municipal Code generally requires stealthing measures for wireless facilities, Verizon respectfully requests a waiver under Section

17.86.090(A)(2) based on the following:
• Visual Consistency: The existing facility on this parcel is a non-stealth (naked) monopole. Replacing it with a stealthed structure, such as a monopalm, would introduce visual inconsistency and draw more attention to the site, thereby defeating the intended aesthetic purpose.
• Engineering Limitations: Stealth structures often restrict the number and orientation of antennas that can be deployed. A camouflaged design may not accommodate the technical and RF performance requirements needed for Verizon’s network in this location.
• Non-Discrimination: Denial of a non-stealth structure in this case would unreasonably discriminate against Verizon Wireless under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), given that functionally equivalent, non-stealth facilities already exist—including on this very parcel.

Consistency with Code Intent and Public Interest
This proposal complies with the broader intent of the City’s wireless ordinance by minimizing new site development, maintaining existing coverage, and providing essential service continuity— all while staying within an already developed wireless use parcel.

This project will:
• Preserve existing RF coverage without degradation;
• Minimize the introduction of new sites elsewhere in the community; • Continue to support reliable wireless and emergency communications; and • Comply with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations.

Independent Consultant Review
In accordance with Section 17.86.090(B), APC Towers agrees to fund and support the City’s engagement of an independent third-party consultant to evaluate this waiver request. A deposit and full reimbursement for the consultant's services will be provided as required.

Conclusion
In summary, APC Towers and Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the City’s approval for:
• Construction of a new, standalone monopole on the existing parcel; • A height waiver to 85 feet to maintain service coverage; and • A stealthing waiver to permit a non-stealth monopole, consistent with the visual character of the existing facility.

These requests are supported by exhaustive co-location analysis, detailed engineering review, and legal protections under federal law. They are also in the public interest, ensuring uninterrupted wireless service for residents, businesses, and emergency responders in Coachella.

The full application package includes:
• Site plans and elevations
Attachment 2
51 Item 2.

Page 2 of 2 ends

EukonGroup
• RF coverage maps (existing vs. proposed)
• Photo simulations
• Authorization for independent consultant review
We appreciate your time and consideration of this critical infrastructure request. Please do not hesitate to contact us if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,
David Elliott
Site Acquisition
Eukon Group, Agent of APC Towers
808-489-1191
[email protected]
Attachment 2
52 Item 2.
49640 Oates Lane Coachella CA 92236
CA-4009
Starfruit
Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking northeast from Avenue 50
View 1
Existing
proposed monopalm
future carrier antennas
©2025 Google Maps
Attachment 3
Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking southeast from Oates Lane
View 2
Existing
proposed monopalm
future carrier antennas
49640 Oates Lane Coachella CA 92236
CA-4009
Starfruit
©2025 Google Maps
Attachment 3
Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking northwest from Avenue 50
View 3
Existing
proposed monopalm
future carrier antennas
49640 Oates Lane Coachella CA 92236
CA-4009
Starfruit
©2025 Google Maps
Attachment 3
STARFRUIT_RELHR
Propagation Map
September 18, 2025
56 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 2 Map Overview
57 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 3 Verizon Coverage without STARFRUIT_RELHR
58 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 4 Verizon Coverage with STARFRUIT_RELHR at 80’ RAD
59 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 5 Verizon Coverage with STARFRUIT_RELHR at 45’ RAD
60 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 6 STARFRUIT_RELHR Coverage Only at 80’ RAD
61 Item 2.

Verizon confidential and proprietary. Unauthorized disclosure, reproduction or other use prohibited. © 2025 Verizon 7 STARFRUIT_RELHR Coverage Only at 45’ RAD
62 Item 2.
63 Item 2.
80237.00820\44967545.1

STAFF REPORT
5/6/2026
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Anahi Fernandez, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution No. PC2026-16: Request for Conditional Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 401 Clamatosdel43 – Type 40 ABC License
SPECIFICS: Request for conditional approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 401 to allow liquor sales (ABC Type 40, On-Sale Beer) within an existing 1,625 square-foot commercial suite located at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street (APN 603-281-044); and determining that the proposed project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Applicant: Salvador Islas STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC2026-16 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 401 to allow a liquor sales license (Type 40, On-Sale Beer) at a proposed sports bar located at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street, pursuant to the findings and conditions in the staff report and the attached resolution.

BACKGROUND:

Clamatosdel43 Sports Bar will occupy a vacant tenant space within the Coachella Shopping Center, located in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zone at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street (APN 603-281-044). The subject tenant space was previously occupied by a furniture retailer, California Furniture.

Per City of Coachella Municipal Code Section 17.74.015(A)(1), establishments that do not currently but propose to sell liquor must obtain a CUP. The applicant is requesting the approval of the conditional use permit for the Type 40 alcohol license.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Salvador Islas, submitted a request for a CUP to allow the ABC Type 40 (On- Sale Beer) at the existing commercial suite on February 17, 2026. The restaurant has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). The C-N zone allows for liquor sales with the approval of a CUP. In December of 2016, the City adopted an ordinance requiring a Conditional Use Permit for any off-sale and on-sale alcohol sales establishment, with additional land use 64 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967545.1
regulations contained in Section 17.74.015 of the Coachella Municipal Code. The CUP findings are required to be made by the Planning Commission.

The subject site is located within Census Tract 9404.00 with a population of 6,242 persons, where ABC concentration standards allow a maximum of six (6) on-sale licenses, where eighteen (18) active on-sale licenses exist. The applicant is not applying for an off-sale license, however there are fifteen (15) active off-sale licenses where ABC concentration standards allow a maximum of three (3) off-sale licenses.

Table 1 – On-Sale Alcohol Licenses
On-Sale Alcohol License within Census Tract 9404.00
Business Name Address License Type
1 Fratneral Order of Eagles
Aerie No 2594
46425 Tyler Street 51 (Club)
2 Fratneral Order of Eagles
Aerie No 2594
46425 Tyler Street 58 (Caterer’s Permit)
3 Spotlight 29 Casino 46200 Harrison Street 77 (Event Permit) 4 Spotlight 29 Casino 46200 Harrison Street 47 (General) 5 Spotlight 29 Casino 46200 Harrison Street 68 (Portable Bar) 6 Spotlight 29 Casino 46200 Harrison Street 58 (Caterer) 7 Taqueria Allende 49715 Harrison Street 41 (Eating Place) 8 Santa Fe Restaurant 49305 Grapefruit Blvd, #3, #4 58 (Caterer’s Permit) 9 Santa Fe Restaurant 49305 Grapefruit Blvd, #3, #4 47 (General) 10 Asadero Los Corrales 49975 Harrison Street STE G
& H
41 (Eating Place)
11 Eastern Buffet 49211 Grapefruit Blvd, STE 7 41 (Eating Place) 12 Pizza Hut 49954 Harrison Street 41 (Eating Place)
13 Carnitas La Piedad 49625 Highway 86 41 (Eating Place) 14 Carnitas La Piedad 49625 Highway 86 58 (Caterer’s Permit) 15 Sushi & Mariscos
Guamuchil
49405 Grapefruit Blvd 47 (General)
16 Taco Shop 760 48975 Grapefruit Blvd 47 (General)
17 Taco Shop 760 48975 Grapefruit Blvd 58 (Caterer’s Permit) 18 La Noria Fonda Cenaduria
& Cafe
49613 Cesar Chavez St, B-106 41 (Eating Place)
Table 2– Off-Sale Alcohol Licenses
Off-Alcohol License within Census Tract 9404.00
Business Name Address License Type
1 Food 4 Less 49241 Grapefruit Blvd 21 (General)
2 Coachella Travel Center 46155 Dillon Road 20 (Beer & Wine) 3 Victory Liquor & Sports
Goods
49968 Cesar Chavez
Street
21 (General)
65 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967545.1
4 CVS Pharmacy 84010 Avenue 50 21 (General)
5 Garibaldi Meat Market 49975 Harrison Street,

STE A & B
20 (Beer & Wine)
6 Coachella Florist 49889 Harrison Street 20 (Beer & Wine) 7 Family Dollar 49681 Harrison Street 20 (Beer & Wine)
8 Coachella Oil Corporation 46651 Dillon Road 20 (Beer & Wine) 9 Smart & Final 49978 Harrison Street 21 (General)
10 Baja Meat Market 47570 Van Buren
Street
21 (General)
11 Tower Market 84417 Indio Blvd 21 (General)
12 Arco AMPM 48055 Grapefruit Blvd 21 (General)
13 El Dorado Liquor 49647 Cesar Chavez
Street
20 (Beer & Wine)
14 C-Store 46355 Dillon Road 21 (General)
15 Tropicana Supermarket 84075 Avenue 50 20 (Beer & Wine) Section 17.74.015(C) of the Coachella Municipal Code states that on-sale establishments may not
fall within 700 feet, measured from property line to property line, of a use for religious worship, school (public or private), park, playground, residential or any similar sensitive use nor can the establishment fall within 700 feet of an existing liquor, on-sale use. Section

17.74.015(C)(1)(b)(i) of the
Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission may find that the public benefit outweighs the distance restrictions of subsection 17.74.015(B) upon additional findings that:

I. The establishment provides a substantial benefit to the immediate neighborhood not provided by another existing establishment within the restricted distance; and II. Not greater than five percent of the sales floor area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, shall be used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages.

The subject site is within 700 feet of the following on-sale liquor uses: Asadero Los Corrales and Taqueria Allende, both located within the same commercial center. Additionally, the subject site is within 700 feet of two residential communities, situated approximately 90 feet to the west and 300 feet to the south.

The floor plan for Calamtosdel43 sports bar includes a total floor area of 1,625 square feet (SF).

There is no alcohol display, storage will be located within a storage room and stored under the service counter in a cooler, and will not be within the sales floor area. The establishment is proposing to utilize 73 sq. ft. for alcohol storage and does not exceed the 5% maximum sales floor area (81.25 SF) that may be dedicated to alcohol. 66 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967545.1
Image 1 - Floor Plan
Staff contacted Lieutenant Robert Garcia with the Riverside County Sheriff Office regarding any concerns for the proposed business that the Planning Commission may want to consider when making findings or including conditions of approval for the CUP. Lieutenant Garcia identified no recommendations. At the time of the publication of this staff report, no comments have been received from the public with any concerns regarding the approval of the proposed CUP for Type 40 (On-Sale Beer) alcohol sales.

Hours of Operation:

The Clamatosdel43 sports bar will operate Monday-Thursday from 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM and Friday-Sunday from 10:00 AM to 11:00 PM.

Environmental Setting:

The subject business is located at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street within the within the Coachella Shopping Center. The General Plan Land Use Designations, Zoning Designations, and Existing uses are identified below:

Table 2 – General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Existing Uses General Plan Zoning Surrounding Existing Uses
Site: Neighborhood Center Neighborhood
Commercial
Commercial
North: Neighborhood Center Neighborhood
Commercial
Commercial
67 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967545.1
South: Neighborhood Center Neighborhood
Commercial
Commercial
East: Downtown Center Downtown Commercial
West: Suburban Neighborhood Suburban Neighborhood Single Family Residential Parking:

In the Neighborhood Commercial zone, restaurants and other eating establishments are required to provide one (1) space for each forty-five (45) square feet of customer area, plus one space for each two hundred (200) square feet of noncustomer area. The subject site has a total area of 1,625 SF, with about 1,125 SF being for customer area, and 500 square feet being noncustomer area; which would require the subject site to provide 28 parking spaces. The commercial center has sufficient parking for the proposed commercial uses.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:

A public hearing notice for the Project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on April 26, 2026, and a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property on April 22, 2026, pursuant to Section 17.74.010 of the Coachella Municipal Code. At the time of issuance of this staff report, staff had not received public comments on this application.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act as “Existing Facilities” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301). The proposed project consists of the operation, permitting, licensing and minor alteration of an existing private commercial structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former commercial use on the property. The subject site has been used for commercial retail establishments and no expansions of use are proposed. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no possibility of a significant cumulative impact as staff does not anticipate that other projects of the same type will take place at the project site or the surrounding area. The tenant space does not present any unusual circumstances such as unusual resources, an unusual location, or unusual physical qualities inherent to the project site that might result in significant impacts. The project area is developed and does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas.

The project would not damage any scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because there are no historical resources near the proposed project such that project impacts would not have any substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource.

ALTERNATIVES:
68 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967545.1
1) Approve Resolution No. PC 2026-16 that approves CUP No. 401 with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff.
2) Approve Resolution No. PC 2026-16 that approves CUP No. 401 with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff with modifications as proposed by the Planning Commission.
3) Deny the approval of Resolution No. PC 2026-16 and request that staff prepare a Planning Commission Resolution for denial of CUP No. 401.
3) Issue a continuance for this item and provide staff and the applicant with direction.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on the analysis contained herein and the findings listed below, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 401 with the findings and conditions listed in Resolution No. PC 2026-16. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission makes the findings that the public convenience or necessity is justified to issue the Type 40 license (On-Sale Beer).

Furthermore, the Sherriff’s Department has not raised concerns about granting the CUP for Type 40 alcohol sales at this site.

Attachments:

1. Attach 1 - Resolution No. PC2026-16

2. Attach 1 – Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval RESO PC2026-16 CUP 401

3. Attach 1 – Exhibit B – Floor Plan

4. Attach 2 – Vicinity Map

5. Attach 3 – Site Photos
69 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 401 TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES (ABC TYPE 40, ON-SALE BEER) WITHIN AN EXISTING 1,625 SQUARE-FOOT SPORTS BAR LOCATED AT 49915 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, AND

FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, the applicant Salvador Islas, filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. 401 (CUP No. 401) to allow for a Type 40 (On-Sale Beer) liquor license for the Clamatosdel43 Sports Bar located at 49915 Cesar Chavez Street (APN 603-281-044); and
WHEREAS, the establishment has a land use designation of Neighborhood Center pursuant to the City of Coachella General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the establishment has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) pursuant to the City of Coachella Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation allows for alcohol sales with the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 17.74.05 of the City of Coachella Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with and intended to implement the vision of the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code pertaining to neighborhood-scale retail, and a diverse economy and jobs center; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is consistent with and intended to implement the vision of the Neighborhood Center General Plan by providing work and accessible goods to neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, the project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and staff determined that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Section 15301, Existing Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing to consider the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP No. 401) was issued in accordance with Coachella Municipal Code Section

17.74.010(G), inclusive of the publication on April 26, 2026, of a legal public hearing notice published in the Desert Sun, the City’s newspaper of record, and the mailing of a public hearing notice to a certified list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject properties on April 22, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on May 6th, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant and members of 70 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1
Resolution No. PC2026-16

Page 2 ends

the public were present and were afforded an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and following discussion, the Planning Commission approved this Resolution for the conditional approval of the Type 40 liquor license for Clamatosdel43 (CUP No. 401) as conditioned, with the motion vote outcome specified in the meeting minutes for the May 6th, 2026, Planning Commission meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella, California hereby resolves, finds, and determines as follows:

Section 2. CEQA Findings. The Planning Commission finds the Project categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The entire Project is exempt under Section 15301 because it involves the operation, permitting, licensing and minor alteration of an existing private commercial structure involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former commercial use. The subject site has been used for commercial retail establishments and no expansions of use is propose.

Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no possibility of a significant cumulative impact as staff does not anticipate that other projects of the same type will take place at the project site or the surrounding area. The tenant space does not present any unusual circumstances such as unusual resources, an unusual location, or unusual physical qualities inherent to the project site that might result in significant impacts. The project area is developed and does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. The project would not damage any scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because there are no historical resources near the proposed project such that project impacts would not have any substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource.

Staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval of the Project.

Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, including the staff report and written and verbal testimony, which are all incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission hereby finds that:

1. The proposed use will not be in conflict with, but will be in harmony with and in accordance with the objectives of the General Plan because the proposed restaurant use with alcohol sales is within the Neighborhood Center land use designation according to the General Plan 2035, which allows the intended physical character to provide a 71 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1
Resolution No. PC2026-16

Page 3 ends

comfortable, walkable environment for shoppers and diners and envisions neighborhood commercial uses mixed with high-density residential uses. The liquor sales establishment will be part of a restaurant that will serve nearby residents

2. The proposed use will be located, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the existing character of the general vicinity and shall not change the essential character of the same area because the proposed use is within the zoning designation of ‘C-N’ (Neighborhood Commercial) which permits restaurants subject to obtaining a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages. The proposed use is located within an existing building that is compatible with the adjoining commercial uses and the conditional use permit can be revoked if any of the conditions of approval are violated.

3. Consideration has been given to harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density, to the availability of public facilities and utilities, to harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character, to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets, and to any other relevant impact of development, because the existing commercial tenant space is within an existing commercial center with all infrastructure available onsite for the existing restaurant use. Additionally, there is adequate ingress and egress into and out of the existing center to maintain the adequacy of the traffic circulation system serving the proposed use.

4. Where the proposed use may be potentially hazardous or disturbing to existing or reasonably expected neighboring uses, it must be justified by the common public interest as a benefit to the community as a whole. As conditioned, the proposed use will provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant use with limitations on hours of operation. As such, there will be no hazardous or disturbing effects to the existing and neighboring uses.

5. The proposed use provides vehicular approaches to the property designed for reasonable minimal interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads, because all approaches are in full use for the patrons of the commercial center and no alterations are proposed as part of the request to sell and/or serve alcohol at the existing 1,625 square foot commercial space and no negative effects exists. Further, there is an existing striped parking lot available for use for patrons.

6. The City of Coachella has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act as an “Existing Facilities” project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301). The project involves the issuance of a liquor license. The issuance of the liquor license will involve a negligible expansion of the use. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

7. No greater than five percent of the sales floor area or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less, will be used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages. The project is conditioned to ensure that the display area for alcohol does not exceed the limits of the Coachella Municipal Code and requires that the Development Services Director conduct an inspection of the display prior to business operation. 72 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1
Resolution No. PC2026-16

Page 4 ends

Section 4. Planning Commission Approval. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby CONDITIONALLY APPROVES the Conditional Use Permit application (CUP No. 401) and finds that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with ALL Conditions of Approval, as set forth in “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” of this Resolution. Failure to demonstrate compliance with these conditions of approval may result in the delay of the Proposed Use or the rescinding of the City of Coachella’s conditional use permit approval. Where the term “Applicant” is used in any condition of approval, this term shall also apply to the Property Owner, any developer, or any successor in the interest of the Applicant. It is the Applicant’s or Applicant’s successor in interest responsibility to fully comply with the conditions of approval unless subsequently modified in accordance with the City’s required processes and procedures.

Section 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 53990 Enterprise Way Coachella, CA 92236. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6
th day of May 2026 by the
following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Eva Lara
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
73 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1
Resolution No. PC2026-16

Page 5 ends

City Attorney
74 Item 3.
80237.00820\44967544.1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF COACHELLA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. PC2026-16 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 6
th day of May 2026 by the following vote of the Planning Commission:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Commission Secretary
75 Item 3.

Resolution No. PC2026-16 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 401 CLAMATOSDEL43 TYPE 40 LIQUOR

LICENSE
General Conditions

1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of approval as included in CUP No. 401, and any modifications or extensions thereof, for the respective approval and Resolution No. PC2026-16.

2. The conditional use permit shall expire and shall become void two years following the date on which the conditional use became effective unless alcohol sales are commenced within 24 months of the effective date of this Conditional Use Permit or an extension of time is reviewed by the Planning Commission. A request for time extension shall be filed in a timely manner with applicable fees.

3. Conditional Use Permit No. 401 is an approval for on-sale beer at Clamatosdel43. This approval is based on the floor plan submitted for the proposed project. Violation of any of the conditions of approval shall be cause for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Any modifications shall be administratively reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director and include a stamped approval by the Planning Division.

4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Coachella, its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void or annul any project approval or condition of approval of the city concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed by the City Council or Planning Commission. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents in the defense of the City Attorney, within five days of the effective date of this approval.

5. The use shall meet the standards within the limits established by the Coachella Municipal Code as related to emissions of noise, odor, dust, vibration, wastes, fumes, or any public nuisances arising or occurring incidental to the establishment or operation.

6. Hours of operation of the store may be no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 11:00 p.m. daily.

7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements imposed by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and a review of this conditional use permit will be required if the business results in an increase in floor area.
76 Item 3.

Resolution No. PC2026-16 EXHIBIT A

8. Not greater than 5% of the sales floor area, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, shall be used for the display or sale of alcoholic beverages. The applicant shall provide a revised floor plan with a compliant display area prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall request an inspection by the Development Services Director or designee for compliant of the store and displays with conditions of approval.

9. The applicant shall not store alcoholic beverages or boxes in sales areas beyond the 5% display limitation.

10. The exterior appearance of the structure of the proposed establishment shall not be inconsistent with the exterior appearance of commercial structures already constructed or under construction within the shopping center so as to cause blight or deterioration.

11. Allowable signs affixed to windows shall in no case exceed 20% of the occupancy frontage window area.

12. Any exterior wall signs shall consist of internally illuminated channel lettering and shall require a City building permit. Signage shall not provide flat signage backing. Signage shall be in compliance with the sign program of the commercial center to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

13. CUP No. 401 shall be considered effective upon the completion of all conditions of approval required prior to the sale of alcohol for this project, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director will confirm with the CA Alcohol Beverage Control that this condition has been satisfied and that CUP No. 401 is considered effective.

Building & Safety Division

14. The applicant must dedicate 20% of the projects valuation to compliance with accessibility. Please reference the attached accessibility worksheet details.

15. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect.

16. Provide the equipment layout of the proposed kitchen and bar.

17. Entry to bar tender area must be left open, remove one bar stool.

18. Where food or drink is served for consumption at a counter exceeding 34 inches (864 mm) in height, a portion of the main counter 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length shall be provided in compliance with Section 11B-902.3. (CBC 11B-226.3)

19. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with Section 11B-902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than 77 Item 3.

Resolution No. PC2026-16 EXHIBIT A
employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with Section 11B-902. (CBC 11B-226.1) Utilities Department

20. The project may be required to connect to the City’s public water and wastewater systems.

In the event that new connections are required, the applicant shall submit water and sewer plans for approval.

21. New water and sewer connections are subject to the collection of impact fees.

22. All fire lines require the installation of Double Check Detector Assemblies.

23. Backflow devices are required on all non-residential connections installed within 12” of the meter box.

24. All buildings may require individual meters.

25. Irrigation may require its own meter.

26. All water connections shall install 4G AMI master meters.

27. All service lines shall be copper tubing per the approved list of materials.

28. All materials shall be per the approved list of materials provided by the Engineering Department or the Utilities Department.

29. No new water connections shall be shown on landscaping plans, all connections shall be in the water improvement plans.

30. Trees/shrubs must have a minimum of 15’ separation distance from the Utilities water/sewer laterals. Or minimum 10’ separation distance from water/sewer laterals with root barrier.

Environmental Division

31. Provide plumbing blueprints depicting sanitary, industrial, and/or grease waste line (all lines that are applicable).

32. Illustrate domestic water and sewer point of connection to the City’s utilities.

33. Provide plumbing code fixture schedule with total DFU’s listed.

34. Complete Utilities Department’s wastewater discharge survey and submit to Development Services.
78 Item 3.

Resolution No. PC2026-16 EXHIBIT A

35. For tenant improvements, current and proposed plumbing code fixture schedule must be provided.

36. Pretreatment equipment/Sample box: (if applicable) Provide manufacture specifications and sizing chart.

37. Pretreatment Equipment Minimum Requirements:
a. 750 gal minimum.
b. Clean outs and vents before and after pretreatment equipment. c. Sample box immediately downstream of the pretreatment equipment. d. Multi suite buildings requesting pretreatment installation require separate sewer lateral connection per pretreatment device made from precast concrete form. 79 Item 3.

B80
Item 3.

VICINITY MAP
¯

CESAR CHAVEZ STREET
AVENUE 50
SITE
AVENUE 50

GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
HWY 111
Attachment 2
81 Item 3.

Attachment 3
82 Item 3.
1 STAFF REPORT
5/6/2026
TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
FROM: Kendra Reif, Community Development Director
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. PC 2026-09 of the Planning Commission of the City of Coachella: Request for Planning Commission recommendation of approval to the City Council of Change of Zone, CZ 20-01, from MH to MS and CG; and conditional approval of Tentative Parcel Map 39721; CUP 324 to allow commercial cannabis uses; CUP 325 to allow drive through restaurant; CUP 326 to allow service station and mini-mart; AR 20-04 to approve site design, architecture and signage (billboard) and DA 25-02 to approve a Development Agreement, for 43± acres of land located at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and SR 86 (APNs 763-330-013, 763-330-018, and 763-330-029), and recommending certification of the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Applicant: Empire Airport LLC.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and recommend the conditional approval by the City Council of Change of Zone, CZ 20-01, Tentative Parcel Map 39721, CUP 324, CUP 325, AR 20-04 and DA 25-02 for 43± acres of land located at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and SR 86 (APNs 763-330-013, 763- 330-018, and 763-330-029), and recommending certification of the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant, Empire Airport LLC, requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of:
 Change of Zone No. 20-01 which changes the Zoning designation of the 40.8± acres from Heavy Industrial (MH) to Manufacturing Service (MS) and 2.2± acres from MH to General Commercial (CG);
83 Item 4.
2  Tentative Parcel Map 39721 which will subdivide the site into 8 lots, including the potential for condominium use;
 CUP No. 324 which would allow the development of commercial cannabis uses on the 40.8± acres of MS land;
 CUP No. 325 which would allow the development of a drive-through restaurant on the 2.2± acres of CG land (parcel no. 7 of the TPM);
 CUP No. 326 which would allow the development of a service station and convenience store on the 2.2± acres of CG land (parcel no. 7 of the TPM);  AR 20-04 which provides for the design, architecture and landscaping for the Project, as well as allowing an electronic billboard on the east boundary of the site;  DA 25-02 which would establish the responsibilities of the developer and the City relating to the build out of the Project;
 Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106) which analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project, and an adjacent future Imperial Irrigation District (IID) substation on 4 acres north of the Project.

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
84 Item 4.
3 BACKGROUND:

The Project site is an isolated parcel that occurs between the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) and SR 86. Lands in this area are envisioned in the General Plan to be developed for industrial uses, and some of that type of development has occurred west of the Project site and beyond the CVSC along Grapefruit Boulevard. The Project site is located at the south boundary of the City, and the south side of Airport Boulevard is unincorporated Riverside County. The City and County are currently working toward improvements to the Airport Boulevard bridge immediately south of the Project site. These plans are well into design, and the Project has been designed to integrate into these improvements.

As shown in Figure 1, Vicinity Map, the Project site is located on currently vacant land at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and State Route 86. The site is bounded by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel to the west, vacant Caltrans right of way to the north, SR 86 and the Airport Boulevard on- and off-ramps to the east with agricultural lands beyond, and Airport Boulevard and an existing mobile home park beyond to the south. Table 1 provides the existing conditions, including General Plan and Zoning designations for the site and its surroundings.

Table 1
General Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Existing Uses
General Plan Zoning Surrounding Existing
Uses
Site: Industrial District Current: Heavy Industrial
Proposed: Manufacturing Service,
General Commercial
Vacant
North: Industrial District Heavy Industrial Vacant
South: Riverside County Riverside County Occupied mobile home park
East: Industrial District Heavy Industrial SR 86, Agriculture West: Industrial District,
Public Facilities
Open Space Coachella Valley
Stormwater Channel
The Project site totals 42.69± acres, extending along the SR 86 right-of-way. The applicant proposes the development of a master planned mixed commercial/industrial Project that will consist of the following development types/areas which are described from south to north on the Project site. For reference, the corresponding parcel number from the TPM is provided with each development type. The TPM is provided in Attachment 2, Tentative Parcel Map, Grading and Phasing Plans. The Project site plan is provided in Figure 2 below, and in Attachment 3, Architectural Plan Set.
 A 4,000± square foot convenience store with 6 pump stations (12 pumps) and a 4,650± square foot retail/drive-through restaurant building on 2.2± acres at the south end of the site (Parcel 7 of TPM);
 81,000± square feet of office/business park space in 18 buildings immediately north Parcels 5 and 6 of TPM);
 76,800± square feet of auto storage in 4 buildings (Parcel 4 of TPM);  128,600± square feet of self-storage space in 17 buildings (Parcel 3 of TPM); 85 Item 4.
4  233,100± of large warehouse space in 6 buildings ranging in size from 22,400 to 48,800 square feet each (Parcel 1 of TPM);
 96,000± square feet of small warehouse space in 5 buildings ranging in size from 9,600 to 24,000 square feet would be places along the east boundary of the site (Parcel 2 of the TPM).

In total, the Project would generate 624,500± square feet of building space. Due to its size, the Project will be phased. A Phasing Exhibit is included in Attachment 2.

Access to the Project is proposed from a central driveway on the north side of Airport Boulevard.

A second emergency access point will be provided east of the primary access point, immediately west of the SR 86 off-ramp. The primary access will be signalized.

As described above, the Project TPM will divide the site based on the land use type envisioned for the property, and will result in 8 parcels. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the Project components, and Figure 2 represents the Project site plan.

Table 2
Project Information
Total Project Area 42.69
Parcels Created 8 Parcels
Convenience Store & Service Station 4,000 SF, 6 pump stations/2.2 acres Retail/Drive Through 4,650 SF/2.2 acres
Business Park 81,000 SF/6.62 acres
Auto Storage 76,800 SF/4.62 acres
Self-Storage 128,600 SF/6.71 acres
Large Warehouse 233,100 SF/9.22 acres
Small Warehouse 96,000 SF/5.94 acres
Airport Boulevard ROW 0.8 acres
Internal Streets (TPM Parcel 8) 2.3 acres
Figure 2 - Site Plan
The following sections address each of the applications described above individually. The Change of Zone application is the over-arching application for the Project. The three Conditional Use 86 Item 4.
5 Permits (CUP) address various specific land uses within the Project, and the Architectural Review application will guide the architecture and landscaping design through its ultimate build out.

Finally, the Tentative Parcel Map provides for the legal means to convey the property to various potential ownership entities in the future, including the potential to establish a condominium map, which would function much like a residential condominium map, and provide for common area maintenance and coordinated implementation of Project plans.

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The Project site is located in an Industrial District, and further located in Subarea 8 as designated in the General Plan.

The Industrial District is envisioned to be made up of larger lots and buildings that support concentrations of business activity, with supporting retail and office uses. Projects are to be served by major City streets, and provide internal roadways that provide for internal circulation. Buildings are to be one- and two-story structures, with simple, attractive facades that face the street. Building materials should consist of masonry or concrete, and larger buildings should include multiple simple masses. Industrial Districts are intended to be separate from the City’s neighborhoods and districts. Subarea 8 is envisioned as a transforming area that will create employment opportunities with a variety of industrial and office uses that take advantage of SR 86 and railroad proximity.

The Project conforms with the vision and policies established for the Industrial District and Subarea 8. It will provide a variety of employment opportunities from a broad range of business types, which are likely to include local business owners and regional or national brands. The Project will provide meaningful frontage on SR 86, and has been designed to provide defined architectural detail on the highway (see further discussion under Architectural Review, below).

The Project is forecast to create about 740 jobs, which will range from professional and management position, to service industry employment. The commercial component located at the south end of the Project provides both a highway commercial function, and a local convenience for Project employees and surrounding businesses and residents.

CHANGE OF ZONE 20-01
As described above, the Project proposes a Change of Zone from Heavy Industrial (MH) to Manufacturing Service (MS) for 40.8± acres, and General Commercial (CG) for 2.2± acres of the site. Both these zoning designations are consistent with the Industrial District General Plan land use designation, insofar as MS allows a range of industrial uses, and CG in this case provides for supporting commercial uses that will serve both on-site employees and the general public. Given the site’s location on SR 86, the less intense, more “industrial park” appearance generated by MS uses is desirable to provide a more attractive appearance on this regional roadway. Finally, the MS Zone, and the proposed Project, will create an employment center for the City in this location, and broaden residents’ employment opportunities.
87 Item 4.
6 Conditional Use Permit 324
CUP 324 is proposed to allow for commercial cannabis businesses across the site. There are no specific users proposed at this time. However, by establishing the CUP, the individual buildings within the MS portion of the site could develop as cannabis businesses, without further consideration for their land use compatibility. Given the site’s isolation from other parcels, and its location on a major City roadway, use of some of the buildings for cannabis cultivation or manufacturing would not impact residential neighborhoods within the City. The site provides for such a use in a controlled environment, and would be appropriate given the setting among other quasi-industrial uses. Cannabis uses, if proposed in the future, would be required to comply with Chapters 17.85 of the Zoning Ordinance, including the requirements for indoor use only, odor control, distance restrictions and compliance with all State laws and permitting. These restrictions ensure that the use can be operated with minimum conflicts with other land uses. Finally, any cannabis user would be required to the design established in Architectural Review 20-04, which ensures that the high quality of design required throughout the Project would be maintained. As described, the Findings for approval of this CUP can be made, and are provided below.

Conditional Use Permit 325
CUP 325 would allow the development of a drive-through restaurant on the 2.2 acre CG portion of the site. The use is consistent with the Industrial District designation of the General Plan, insofar as it provides a support commercial and retail use for the businesses within the Project, as well as travelers on SR 86. The site will have high visibility to the highway, and is provided direct access from the off-ramps and Airport Boulevard. The isolated nature of the Project limits the potential impacts associated with this use, including lights from vehicles and outdoor speaker systems on the residential uses on the south side of Airport Boulevard. The drive-through has been designed to provided sufficient stacking internal to the Project site, so as not to impact City roadways or the highway. As described, the Findings for approval of this CUP can be made, and are provided below.

Conditional Use Permit 326
CUP 326 is proposed to allow the service station and convenience store on the 2.2 acre CG portion of the site. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Industrial District, insofar as it provides a supporting retail use for employees within the Project and travelers on SR 86. The use is also consistent with the MS Zone, as it is allowed with approval of a CUP.

As with CUP 325, this CUP will provide a service to the employees and customers of the Project, as well as the traveling public on SR 86. The site is isolated, and is located internal to the Project, with sufficient maneuvering and stacking area to prevent interference with traffic movements on Airport Boulevard. The design of the building and the canopy are consistent with the design of the Project overall, and will integrate into the Project. The Findings for approval of this CUP can be made, and are provided below.
88 Item 4.
7 Architectural Review 20-04
AR 20-04 addresses the entire Project site, and provides a master plan for site design, architecture and landscaping within the Project. Although no specific users for the site are known at this time, the AR will assure cohesive and high quality development within the Project. As described above, and in Attachment 2 and below, the Project is proposed to develop in phases, and may take, depending on market forces, as long as 20 years to develop. As such, a master plan for the architecture and landscaping is critical to provide direction, but the AR may require amendment when specific users are identified, or changes in building footprints are identified to meet user needs. Any such changes would require amendment of the AR, which would be reviewed consistent with City requirements for such changes. As proposed, the Phasing Plan would assure that all Project components will be built in a unified manner, including the internal roadway system and perimeter landscaping, which are proposed in Phase 1. Development plans for the site will be provided as the applicant identifies buildings and areas for development, and will be processed through the Public Works and Building Departments, with the Planning Department assuring compliance with the approved AR.

Figure 3 – Phasing Plan
Future users would be required to conform to the AR, or would be required to amend it if inconsistent, which would assure that the City would maintain control on building designs throughout the build out of the Project. All references to page numbers within this subsection can be found in Attachment 3, Architectural Plan Set.

Site Design
89 Item 4.
8 The Project’s circulation pattern provides an internal loop road, 30 to 35 feet in paved width, that connects all parts of the Project together. The primary roadway will extend from the Project entry along the entire western edge of the property, looping east at the northern boundary, and returning southerly to connect to the westerly road near the Project entry. Although parking is provided along this roadway, it is limited to assure fewer vehicle conflicts, insofar as interior parking areas are provided for each type of development within the site. Within this circulation system, the different types of buildings are organized together, so that the progression of uses extends from most customer-centric to least on the north end of the site. A second roadway, immediately north of the Project entry, is provided for direct access to the convenience store and service station.

Please see page A-010.

The buildings are distributed throughout the site, and provide sufficient separation and setbacks from structures to allow for the masses of the buildings to be relieved. The setbacks and building heights provided meet the standards of the CG and MS zones, as applicable. Parking is also distributed throughout the site. A total of 682 parking stalls are provided, which exceeds the requirement for 668 stalls. As required by the Building Code, electrical vehicle and ADA spaces are included in this total.

Architecture
The arrangement of buildings within the Project is grouped by business type, with smaller building masses located closer to Airport Boulevard, and the largest building masses at the northern end of the site, in an area that will be less visible from City streets. Building architecture has been detailed for each area of the Project, and is provided on pages A-201 through A-206 of Attachment 3.

Details are shown below.

Figure 4 – Retail Architecture
90 Item 4.
9 The architectural style of the Project is contemporary, and incorporates substantial articulation and materials/color variations to prevent monotony and long uninterrupted façades. A significant component of the design, as shown above and in Attachment 3, is that the buildings are architecturally detailed on all sides. This is particularly important in this case, where a number of buildings will back onto either the CVSC, and development beyond, and the SR 86. The level of detail will assure that the entire Project is cohesive, and that its appearance is consistent both on and off the Project site.

Building heights for the CG zone range between 24 and 28 feet, and for buildings within the MS zone, range from 24 to 50 feet, depending on the development area. Only the large warehouses are proposed to extend to 50 feet. These building heights are consistent with each zone’s development standards.

Landscaping
The overall landscaping plan is provided in Attachment 5. As shown, it provides for perimeter landscaping around the entire site, and landscaping along the internal roads and parking areas. The Figure 5 – Small Business and Large Warehouse Architecture 91 Item 4.
10 species proposed include desert-adapted species, including Date and Mexican Fan Palms, Acacia, Bougainvilla, Ocotillo and Agave. A total of 12% of the site is landscaped.

Electronic Billboard
The plans for the proposed electronic sign on
SR 86 are provided in Attachment. 4. The
billboard is proposed for the center of the site,
as shown in the site plan. The billboard is
subject to the requirements of Municipal Code
Section 5.48. Under that Section, the billboard
is permitted by right in the MS zone, but is
subject to development standards, including the
following:
 Overall height no more than 40 feet
above adjacent roadbed: Because of the
2 foot grade differential between the
site and the SR 86 roadbed, although the
sign will be 42 feet in height, it will be 40 feet above the roadbed.  Sign face cannot exceed 700 square feet: The sign face is 14 feet by 48 feet, or a total of 672 square feet.

The sign will also be subject to Caltrans signage requirements for illuminated signs on a State highway.

Tentative Parcel Map 39721
The TPM will divide the property into 8 lots which are generally consistent with the development types proposed within the Project. It has been submitted as a condominium map, which will allow for the sale of buildings within the site, and will require a property owners’ association for the maintenance of Project-wide improvements, including roads, parking areas, landscaping and 92 Item 4.
11 retention basins. The map has been reviewed by the City Engineer, and conforms to the City’s subdivision standards. The map, as conditioned in the attached Resolution, meets City standards and provides for the logical subdivision of the property.

Development Agreement 25-02
The Development Agreement is governed by the provisions of Chapter 17.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. It allows for the City and the applicant to establish responsibilities of both parties to facilitate the build out of larger or more complex projects. In this case, the DA provides that Development Impact Fees will be frozen at current levels for 5 years; water service will be provided by CVWD’s water line, until such time as the City can serve; and the City and developer will share costs for the IID substation proposed at the north end of the site. The DA has been negotiated between the City and developer, and reviewed by the City Attorney.

PROPOSED FINDINGS:

Zone Change

1. That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The Project site is designated Industrial District in the General Plan. The site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial and is proposed to be changed to Manufacturing Service and General Commercial. The Industrial District designation describes a wide range of industrial uses, including manufacturing and light industrial or business park uses, supported by commercial services in areas that are separated from residential neighborhoods. The designation is also intended to create jobs and diversify the economy for City residents. The proposed Zone Change implements the intent of the General Plan by allowing the development of a broad range of businesses, building types and services that will be consistent with the intent of the designation.

The commercial zone created at the south end of the Project will allow for retail services that support the employees working within the site, the traveling public and surrounding businesses and residents. The Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan.

Conditional Use Permit 324
Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Guidelines Chapter 17.74, Conditional Uses, subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for the CUP:

1. The proposed use will not be in conflict with, but will be in harmony with and in accordance with the objectives of the general plan.

The proposed CUP will allow for the development of cannabis-related businesses within the site.

The Project location is isolated from residential neighborhoods, and surrounded by the SR 86, CVSC and Airport Boulevard, providing separation and distance from residential neighborhoods, as directed in General Plan Land Use policies 7.3 and 7.4. The potential for cannabis-related businesses allows the City an additional component to its economy that provides a service to City residents. The CUP is consistent with the General Plan. 93 Item 4.
12 2. The proposed use will be located, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and shall not change the essential character of the same area.

The development of cannabis-related businesses in this part of the City is consistent with the industrial character existing to the west, along Grapefruit Boulevard, and expected within Subarea 8 of the General Plan, which envisions this part of the City for industrial and quasi-industrial development to expand the City’s economic base and increase employment opportunities, while isolating industrial development from sensitive uses. All cannabis businesses would be operated within buildings, and would be required to comply with all City and State requirements, including State permitting. The use would be located in a master planned project which has established high quality design for all buildings, and any user within a Project building would be required to comply with the internal character of the Project.

The CUP would allow cannabis businesses in buildings already designed and proposed within the Project. Because the design is established in AR 20-04, any user would occupy building(s) that are compatible with the Project as a whole. Further, the use is consistent and compatible with industrial and business park uses, and will not impact residential neighborhoods or sensitive receptors.

Generally, cannabis cultivation and manufacturing uses are low traffic generators, and given that the traffic study for the Project has studied trip generation and impacts on City streets, and identified improvement projects required to keep traffic flows operating at acceptable levels, the CUP would not negatively impact traffic or the capacity of surrounding streets.

The CUP will not result in hazardous uses or substances. Cannabis uses would likely use fertilizers and pesticides, which are highly regulated. Any cannabis business would require permits from and compliance with RWQCB and State licensing agencies, including the management and disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, cannabis uses would occur within a master planned industrial/business park development, and not adjacent to residents or other sensitive receptors.

5. The proposed use will include vehicular approaches to the property designed for reasonable minimal interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.

The CUP will allow the cannabis use only within the MS portion of the site, and only within buildings that are planned for the site. Therefore, any cannabis business proposed under this CUP would be required to access the site from the main entry drive on Airport Boulevard, and would use the internal street system. The CUP does not interfere with traffic on surrounding streets 94 Item 4.
13 because the traffic study prepared for the Project as a whole analyzed traffic impacts and provided mitigation measures and improvements required to maintain acceptable levels of service on City streets.

Conditional Use Permit 325
Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Guidelines Chapter 17.74, Conditional Uses, subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for CUP 325:

1. The proposed use will not be in conflict with, but will be in harmony with and in accordance with the objectives of the general plan.

The CUP would allow a drive-through restaurant to occur within the 2.2± acres of CG land proposed at the south end of the Project site. As described in the staff report, this use will provide support for workers in the Project, the traveling public and nearby residents and businesses. This is consistent with the intent of the Industrial District, which provides for support services for employees in industrial projects in the District. The CUP is therefore consistent with the General Plan.

2. The proposed use will be located, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and shall not change the essential character of the same area.

The future drive-through on the Project site will be required to conform to AR 20-04, which master plans the architecture and landscaping for the entire Project site. The use is typical of a support service for an industrial or business park, or for commercial development at a freeway off-ramp.

The area currently consists of a mix of businesses, vacant land and a mobile home park on the south side of Airport Boulevard, and is envisioned in Subarea 8 of the General Plan as an employment center area. Therefore, the CUP will be compatible with the character of the Project and the area, and will not change that character.

The CUP would allow a drive-through in a building already designed and proposed within the Project for that purpose. Because the design is established in AR 20-04, any user would occupy a building that is compatible with the Project as a whole. Further, the use is consistent and compatible with industrial and business park uses, and will not impact residential neighborhoods or sensitive receptors. The Project EIR has studied trip generation and impacts on City streets, including a drive-through restaurant, and identified improvement projects required to keep traffic flows operating at acceptable levels. Therefore, the CUP would not negatively impact traffic or the capacity of surrounding streets.
95 Item 4.
14 4. Where the proposed use may be potentially hazardous or disturbing to existing or reasonably expected neighboring uses, it must be justified by the common public interest as a benefit to the community as a whole.

The development of a drive-through restaurant will not result in hazardous uses or the use of hazardous materials, insofar as a drive-through restaurant neither creates hazardous conditions, not uses hazardous materials. Therefore, the CUP will not result in impacts to neighboring uses.

5. The proposed use will include vehicular approaches to the property designed for reasonable minimal interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.

The CUP will allow the drive-through use only within a building planned for that use within the Project. Therefore, any drive-through proposed under this CUP would be required to access the site from the main entry drive on Airport Boulevard, and would use the internal street system. The traffic analysis included a study of stacking at the drive-through site, which found that all traffic would be contained on the site, and would not conflict with adjacent uses. The CUP does not interfere with traffic on surrounding streets because the traffic study prepared for the Project as a whole analyzed traffic impacts and provided mitigation measures and improvements required to maintain acceptable levels of service on City streets.

Conditional Use Permit 326
Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Guidelines Chapter 17.74, Conditional Uses, subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for CUP 326:

1. The proposed use will not be in conflict with, but will be in harmony with and in accordance with the objectives of the general plan.

The CUP would allow a convenience store and gas station to occur within the 2.2± acres of CG land proposed at the south end of the Project site. As described in the staff report, this use will provide support for workers in the Project, the traveling public and nearby residents and businesses. This is consistent with the intent of the Industrial District, which provides for support services for employees in industrial projects in the District. The CUP is therefore consistent with the General Plan.

The future convenience store and gas station on the Project site will be required to conform to AR 20-04, which master plans the architecture and landscaping for the entire Project site. The use is typical of a support service for an industrial or business park, or for commercial development at a freeway off-ramp. The area currently consists of a mix of businesses, vacant land and a mobile home park on the south side of Airport Boulevard, and is envisioned in Subarea 8 of the General 96 Item 4.
15 Plan as an employment center area. Therefore, the CUP will be compatible with the character of the Project and the area, and will not change that character.

The CUP would allow a convenience store and gas station in a building already designed and proposed within the Project for that purpose. Because the design is established in AR 20-04, any user would occupy a building that is compatible with the Project as a whole. Further, the use is consistent and compatible with industrial and business park uses, and will not impact residential neighborhoods or sensitive receptors. The Project EIR has studied trip generation and impacts on City streets, including a convenience store and gas station, and identified improvement projects required to keep traffic flows operating at acceptable levels. Therefore, the CUP would not negatively impact traffic or the capacity of surrounding streets.

The development of a convenience store and gas station will result in the presence of large amounts of fuel on the property. The storage and dispensing of fuel is highly regulated by County, State and federal agencies, and any operator would be subject to these regulations. Because the regulations are intended to protect the public from hazards associated with the use, the CUP will not result in impacts to neighboring uses.

5. The proposed use will include vehicular approaches to the property designed for reasonable minimal interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.

The CUP will allow the convenience store and gas station only within a building planned for that use within the Project. Therefore, any such use proposed under this CUP would be required to access the site from the main entry drive on Airport Boulevard, and would use the internal street system. The traffic analysis included a study of traffic accessing the gas station, which found that all traffic would be contained on the site, and would not conflict with adjacent uses. The CUP does not interfere with traffic on surrounding streets because the traffic study prepared for the Project as a whole analyzed traffic impacts and provided mitigation measures and improvements required to maintain acceptable levels of service on City streets.

Tentative Parcel Map 39721
Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Guidelines Chapter 16.12, Tentative Map, subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for Tentative Map approval:
97 Item 4.
16 The Planning Commission shall deny approval of a tentative map, as required by the Subdivision Map Act, if it makes the following findings:

1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The Project site is located in the Industrial District as defined by the General Plan. The TPM proposes the subdivision of the parcel consistent with the uses included in the Project, which are allowable and foreseen uses in the General Plan. The TPM will therefore be consistent with the General Plan, and this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
The General Plan designates the Project site an Industrial District. The TPM includes improvements, including streets, retention basins, utility connections and other features that are necessary for the operation of the Project, and consistent with the City’s standard requirements, including requirements for industrial, business park and commercial uses. The size and shape of the parcels are consistent with the various uses proposed within the Project, and the design includes improvements to serve all of these uses. The TPM will therefore be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, and this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; The Project site is generally flat, and does not contain any physical features which would prohibit or constrain development. The Project will connect to Airport Boulevard, and has integrated plans for improvements to the Airport Boulevard bridge which are consistent with the County’s plans for that bridge. The distribution of buildings, streets and other facilities within the Project site allows for the safe and orderly movement of vehicles and people throughout the site. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; The Project is proposed in the MS and CG zones, and proposes development consistent with the development standards of both zones. The Project includes all of the ancillary facilities needed for the proper operation of a master planned industrial/commercial project, including roads, parking areas, retention basins and utility connections necessary for the safe operation of all components of the Project. The site is therefore physically suitable for the Project, and this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
An EIR was prepared for the proposed Project which analyzes all the potential impacts of the Project, and proposed mitigation measures where necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures have been applied to assure that impacts to biological 98 Item 4.
17 resources, including birds and bats which could occur on the site, will be less than significant. The EIR also found that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with VMT generated from the site. However, the City Council will consider, as allowed under CEQA, whether the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts associated with VMT, and make Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations when they consider the Project for final approval.

The approval of the Project would also include a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program which will assure that the required mitigation measures are implemented throughout construction and operation of the Project. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems;
The TPM proposes the subdivision of 43± acres of land into 8 parcels to facilitate the development of a master planned industrial/business park/commercial project. All components of the Project have been reviewed by the City Engineer, and the City’s Utilities Department to assure that sufficient improvements and facilities are proposed to adequately serve the Project area, including all of the uses proposed. These requirements and conditions of approval are designed to assure that no impacts to public health will occur. Therefore, this finding will not apply to the proposed TPM.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.

The proposed TPM will not conflict with any public easements acquired for access or use by the public at large within the proposed subdivision. The Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal and Engineering Department/Public Works Department have reviewed and approved the access points to the site. The subdivision of land will not conflict with easements for access through or use of property and as such, the subdivision’s design is confirmed to be in harmony with existing public easements. Therefore, this finding does not apply to the proposed TPM.

Architectural Review 20-04
Pursuant to Coachella Municipal Guidelines Chapter 17.72, Architectural Review, subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for the Architectural Review:

1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan; AR 20-04 will result in an industrial and commercial master planned project with uses permitted and conditionally permitted in the Industrial District of the General Plan, and the MS and CG zones of the Municipal Code. The design and distribution of the buildings is consistent with the development standards and requirements of the Industrial District as specified in the Land Use Element. The AR will also result in the generation of jobs opportunities for City residents, and provides an isolated site which does not conflict with surrounding neighborhoods. 99 Item 4.
18 2. The proposed project complies with zoning regulations; The buildings, parking and ancillary structures proposed in the AR conform to the development standards of the MS and CG zones, as applicable. Setbacks and building heights are consistent with the requirements in each zone, and do not exceed these standards. The Project is consistent with Fire Department and Engineering requirements, and has been conditioned appropriately to comply with City standards.

3. The proposed project is consistent with the city's design guidelines; The Project will provide a high quality design for an industrial, business park and commercial project, including a unified design theme for architecture and landscaping. All future users within the Project will be required to maintain the same level of development and maintenance to assure the long term quality of the Project.

4. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity; The Project proposes a master planned, self-contained development that will be isolated from sensitive receptors and residential neighborhoods in the City. The uses likely to locate within the Project are not expected to propose businesses that contain or use hazardous materials, and those that could will be regulated by City, County, State and federal agencies. The improvement of the property will facilitate the development of other surrounding properties by extending utility services in this area of the City, which is still developing and expanding.

5. The proposed project is located, designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and shall not change the essential character of the same area.

The Project is proposed in the Industrial District, and in Subarea 8, as defined in the General Plan.

This area is envisioned for long term economic growth in the City, and for the development of projects similar in style, use and scope to that proposed by the Project. The Project’s design consists of a unified architectural and landscaping theme that will assure a high quality of development and support future developments in the area to also develop to a high standard. The Project will include a Property Owners’ Association or similar mechanism to manage the Project’s facilities in total, and assure long term maintenance of the site.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:

A notice of public hearing to consider the Project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on March 13, 2026, and a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a radius of 300- feet of the subject property on March 13, 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.
100
Item 4.
19 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City determined that the Project as proposed could have a significant impact on the environment, and required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR analyzed all of the required environmental issue areas and found that mitigation measures could be applied to the Project to reduce impacts to less than significant levels for all issue areas except the Project’s impacts from the generation of Vehicle Miles Traveled. As described in the EIR, those impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The EIR is available at:
https://www.coachella.org/departments/development-services/environmental-reviews The City circulated the Draft EIR for public comment between July 1 and September 3, 2025.

During that time, the City received 17 comments from various public agencies and private parties.

In response to these comments, the City prepared a Final EIR/Response to Comments, which is provided as Attachment 6. The Final EIR contains all responses to public comments, changes made to the EIR as a result of these responses, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

Because the EIR identified that VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable, the City Council will need to consider whether the benefits of the Project outweigh the impacts associated with VMT, as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. As stated in that section:
“CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.””
As provided in the Resolution, the Planning Commission would recommend not only that the City Council certify the EIR, but that City Staff prepare and provide Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City Council’s consideration. In this case, it is Staff’s recommendation that the impacts associated with VMT, which at 30.2 VMT per employee will exceed the County’s 29.0 VMT per employee, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, are outweighed by the economic, legal, social and technological benefits associated with the Project, and that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project.

ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve Resolution No. 2026-09 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 20-01, CUP 324, CUP 325, CUP 326, Tentative Parcel Map 39721, AR 20-04 and DA 25-02 with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff, and certify the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 101
Item 4.
20 2) Approve Resolution No. 2026-09 recommending that the City Council approve recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 20-01, CUP 324, CUP 325, CUP 326, Tentative Parcel Map 39721, AR 20-04 and DA 25-02 with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff, with modifications as proposed by the Planning Commission, and certify the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3) Deny Resolution No. 2026-09
4) Continue this item and provide staff and the applicant with direction.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S):

Staff recommends Alternative #1 for recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 20-01, CUP 324, CUP 325, CUP 326, Tentative Parcel Map 39721, AR 20-04 and DA 25-02 and certify the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), including Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. 2026-09

2. Tentative Parcel Map, Grading Plan and Phasing Plan

3. Architectural Plan Set

4. Pylon Sign Plans

5. Landscape Plans

6. Final EIR and MMRP

7. Development Agreement

8. Published Copy of the Notice of Public Hearing
102
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF COACHELLA RECOMMENDING TO THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COACHELLA THE
APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE CZ 20-01, AND THE

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 324, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 325,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 326, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 39721, ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW 20-04 AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA 25-02 FOR THE

PROPOSED AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PROJECT
CONSISTING OF 43± ACRES LOCATED AT THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND
STATE ROUTE 86, APN 763-330-013, 763-330-018, and 763-
330-029; AND RECOMMENDING THE PREPARATION OF

FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE

COACHELLA AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK

DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ADOPTION OF A MMRP (SCH NO. 2023040106).

APPLICANT: EMPIRE AIRPORT LLC.

WHEREAS, in June of 2020, Empire Airport LLC, submitted applications for a Change of Zone, three Conditional Use Permits, a Tentative Parcel Map, and an Architectural Review and associated environmental documentation for the development of a master planned industrial and business park with convenience commercial uses, and subsequently, in 2025, submitted a Development Agreement application for 43± acres at the northwest corner of Airport Boulevard and State Route 86 (“the Project”); and, WHEREAS, the Project site is designated Industrial District in the City of Coachella General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with and intended to implement the vision of the Coachella Municipal Code and the General Plan 2035 pertaining to land use patterns, building and site design, and public right-of-way improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Coachella is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. the City circulated an Initial Study for public comment in April of 2023, and based on the comments and concerns raised by the public, the City determined that the Project could have a significant impact on the environment, and that an Environment Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared; and, 103
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the City prepared the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106) which determined that all impacts except those associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and,
WHEREAS, the City circulated the EIR for public comment between July 21 and September 3, 2025, received 17 comment letters from various agencies, private parties and Native American Tribes; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared responses to the comments received on the EIR, as well as minor changes and corrections to the EIR document, and assembled them in the Final EIR provided to the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2026 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project and the related environmental documents, at which time during the hearing members of the public were given an opportunity to testify regarding the Project; and
WHEREAS, after said public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Project; and,
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

COACHELLA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:

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

SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023040106), the Final EIR and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. The Planning Commission finds adequacy in the CEQA documents and finds that the Draft and Final EIR and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission finds that the Draft and Final EIR, as shown in “Exhibit B” of this Resolution and made a part hereto, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Coachella’s Local CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. Findings on Environmental Impacts. Having reviewed the EIR, the administrative record, and all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR contains a complete, objective, 104
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 3 ends

and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that the significant impacts associated with VMT have been mitigated to the extent feasible, but remain significant and unavoidable, and directs City staff to prepare Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the City Council.

The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.

SECTION 6. Change of Zone 20-01. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Change of Zone 20-01, to modify the Zoning Map from Heavy Industrial (MH) to Manufacturing Service (MS) for 40.8± acres and change 2.2± acres from MH to General Commercial (CG) for APNs 763-330-013, 763- 330-018, and 763-330-029.

SECTION 7. Tentative Parcel Map 39721, CUP 324, CUP 325, CUP 326, AR 20- 04 and DA 25-02. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Project applications, subject to the findings in the staff report, and the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A.

SECTION 8. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Coachella City Hall. City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 9. Execution of Resolution. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign this Resolution and the Planning Commission Secretary shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the members of the City of Coachella Planning Commission on this 6th day of May, 2026.
__________________________
Eva Lara
Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:
________________________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
105
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 4 ends

______________________________________
City Attorney
106
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 6 th day of May,
2026, and was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Kendra Reif
Planning Commission Secretary
107
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 6 ends

EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION PC 2026-09

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Architectural Review No. 20-04
Tentative Parcel Map No. 37921
Conditional Use Permit No. 324, 325 and 326
APN# 763-330-013, -018, -029
Coachella Airport Business Park

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Coachella, its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void or annul any project approval or condition of approval of the city concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed by the City Council or Planning Commission. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents in the defense of the City Attorney, within five days of the effective date of this approval.

2. The working drawings shall include within the first four pages a list of all conditions of approval included in this resolution.

3. CFD. The applicant shall be subject to further requirements that it participate in the Community Facilities District for lots within Tentative Parcel Map 39721 that the City proposed to establish under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 13311 of the California Government Cod, as amended, for all undeveloped property within the boundaries of the City, including the subject property subject to this development approval (Tentative Parcel Map No. 39721), to finance police and fire services for such property. The applicant shall do everything necessary for inclusion of the property subject to this development approval within such District upon its establishment. This development approval is subject to such requirement as a condition, unless such District is established prior to the effectiveness of this development approval in which case, it shall be a condition precedent. The Community Facilities District shall be established before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

4. LLMD. The owner shall agree to the formation of a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District(LLMD) for the maintenance of the lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The owner shall prepare the improvement plans, Engineer's Report, Estimated Costs, and submit to the City Engineer as required for the formation of the LLMD. The funds to be deposited shall be a minimum of $1,000. Costs over 108
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 7 ends

$1,000 shall be billed by the City to the owner for payment prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The LLMD shall be formed before issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

5. CC&R’s. The owner shall agree to the formation of a Property Owners’ Association for maintenance of all common areas including streets, retention basins, fencing, and on-site amenities.

6. CC&R’s. The Property Owners’ Association shall adopt Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R’s), and act as a liaison to the City for review of the placement, type, architectural style, materials, and landscaping of all buildings and lots. The proposed CC&Rs shall be submitted for City and Riverside County Fire review prior to recordation of final map and the City shall be a third-party beneficiary to the CC&Rs.

7. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit detailed landscaping irrigation plans and sign plans for review, including plans for all on-site landscaping and retention basins for approval by the City Engineer and Development Services Director.

8. All street names and addressing shall be consistent with City and USPS policies.

9. The applicant shall submit, and must obtain approval from the Community Development Director, a letter from a registered landscape architect confirming that landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any damaged, dead or decayed landscape areas shall be replaced per approved landscape plans upon landscape inspection by the Community Development Director and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

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

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

11. All development on the site shall be consistent with the plans approved by the City Council for AR 20-04

12. The Mitigation Measures contained in the Coachella Airport Business Park Development Environmental Impact Report (Sch No. 2023040106), as amended in the Final EIR and included in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are incorporated in their entirety by this reference.

Building

13. All structures on the Project site shall comply with the California Building Code in effect at the time that building permits are submitted. 109
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 8 ends

Engineering
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING PLANS or ISSUANCE OF
ENGINEERING PERMITS:

FINAL MAP:

14. A focused Traffic Analysis has been prepared for the project by an appropriately licensed professional engineer and incorporated into the final CEQA documents.

The TA includes but not limited to identification of trip generation, traffic distribution and impact on existing transportation facilities and at time of General Plan build-out, all relevant, ingress and egress movements, lines of sight, queuing analysis, and alignment studies (preliminary signing and striping plan). All Street improvement and site access plans shall conform the approved TA and Environmental documents. Applicant shall be required to obtain approval of all site access and circulation from the Fire Marshall, City engineer, Development Services and Caltrans.

15. A preliminary soils report shall be prepared for the project by an appropriately licensed professional engineer. At a minimum, the soils report shall provide specific analyses and recommendations for grading, pavement structural sections, and infiltration.

16. A comprehensive drainage report, prepared by California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits. The report shall contain pre- and post-development hydrology maps showing on-site and off-site tributary drainage areas and shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District.

Adequate provisions shall be made to accept and conduct the existing tributary drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. If the design of the project includes a retention basin, it shall be sized to contain the runoff resulting from a 10-year storm event and the runoff from a 100-year storm event shall be contained within basin with shallow ponding (3.5' max.). The basin shall be designed to evacuate a 10-year storm event within 72 hours. The size of the retention basin(s) shall be determined by the hydrology report and be approved by the City Engineer. Retention basin shall be provided with a minimum of 2.00 feet sandy soil if determined to contain silt or clay materials. Maximum allowable percolation rate for design shall be 10 gal./s.f./day unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. A percolation test for this site is required to be submitted. A combination drywell vertical drain field shall be constructed at all points where runoff enters the retention basin. Drywell & vertical drain field design shall be based on soils borings made at the proposed drywell locations after the retention basins have been rough graded. Minimum depth shall be 45-feet. A log that includes sieve analysis for each strata of the borings shall be 110
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 9 ends

submitted to the City Engineer for confirmation of depth of the vertical drain fields.

Underground retention under the proposed parking area will be considered as an alternative to surface retention subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

17. Prepare and record necessary drainage easements to implement the project in accordance with drainage law.

18. A storm water quality management plan shall be prepared for the project by California Registered Civil Engineer in compliance with NPDES and State Water Quality Control Board regulations. The project shall be designed to specify preferential use of Low Impact Development Best Management Practices that reduce pollutants and runoff volume.

19. Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer all documents related to any existing and proposed on-site and off-site easements that may affect the development of the site. All easements shall be identified on the engineering plans.

20. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall resolve potential CVWD issues related to existing tile drains or irrigation mains located within the tract boundary or along the streets adjacent to the tract. If necessary, tile drains and irrigation lines shall be relocated and easement documents prepared for the new location of any such lines. The easement shall be shown on the final map. Plans for the tile drain or irrigation relocation shall be submitted to CVWD for approval and a copy of the plans shall be submitted to the City for evaluation regarding possible conflict with City facilities. The applicant shall submit to the City approved copies of any such relocation plan.

21. Full Street Improvements plans, Engineer Estimates for Construction, Street Improvements Bonds and Monument Bonds shall be approved prior to Approval of the Final Maps

22. Prior to submittal of the final map to the City Council for approval, the applicant shall post securities (Bonds) to guarantee the installation of required improvements and a Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be submitted to Engineering Division for City Engineer and City Attorney approval.

23. All Airport Blvd. improvements, including traffic signal installations shall be completed prior to final occupancy for the first structure at the Tract.

GENERAL:

24. Applicant shall comply with the valley wide NPDES permit requirements including but not limited to submittal of a WQMP for plan review accompanied by a $3,000 plan check deposit for approval including executed maintenance agreement. All 111
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 10 ends

unused plan check fees will be refunded to the applicant upon approval of the Final WQMP.

25. The developer shall submit a Fugitive Dust Control and Erosion Control plan in accordance with Guidelines set forth by CMC and SCAQMD to maintain wind and drainage erosion and dust control for all areas disturbed by grading. Exact method(s) of such control shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. No sediment is to leave the site. Additional securities, in bond form, in amount of $2,000.00 per acre of gross area, and a one-time cash deposit of $2,000.00 are required to insure compliance with this requirement. No work may be started on or off site unless the PM-10 plan has been approved, the original plans, and executed dust control agreement, are filed in the engineering department at the City of Coachella.

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

27. In the event the project obtains electrical service from IID, the applicant shall provide necessary utility easements for IID and underground overhead distribution lines within the project boundaries. Applicant shall submit to the City a letter from IID that satisfies this requirement.

28. The applicant shall pay all necessary plan check, permit and inspection fees. Fees will be determined when plans are submitted to the City Engineering Department for plan check.

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

30. Internal roads shall be complete prior to final occupancy of any adjacent structure.

ROUGH GRADING:

31. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, applicant shall comply with any pertinent sections of the approved site CEQA report. These studies may include but are not limited to: cultural resource surveys, archeological surveys or monitoring, biological surveys, nesting bird surveys, etc. Compliance with all required environmental studies associated with ground disturbance shall be confirmed by the Development Services department prior to issuance of grading permits.

32. Prepare and submit rough grading and erosion control plans for the project.

33. The project’s soils engineer shall certify to the adequacy of the grading plan.

34. All projects developing one (1) acre or more of total land area, or which are part of a larger phased development that will disturb one acre of land, are required to obtain 112
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 11 ends

coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Proof of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB for coverage under this permit is required. The Waste Discharger’s Identification Number (WDID), issued by the SWRCB, must be shown on the grading plans. The project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be submitted for the City’s review and approval.

PRECISE GRADING:

35. A precise grading/improvement plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, showing building footprints, pad elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements, and all other pertinent information shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

36. Rough grading shall be certified by the project soils engineer prior to issuance of a permit for precise grading or building construction.

37. Provide and record a reciprocal use and maintenance agreement to assure common ingress and egress and joint maintenance of all common access, parking areas and drives.

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

STREET IMPROVEMENTS:

39. Street improvement plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. All street improvements including street lights shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City Municipal Code, General Plan, and Standards and Specifications. Street flow line grade shall have a minimum slope of 0.35 %.

40. Applicant shall construct all off-site and on-site improvements including street pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, medians, traffic signals, perimeter walls, perimeter landscaping and irrigation, storm drain, street lights, and any other incidental works necessary to complete the improvements. Driveways shall conform to City of Coachella standards for commercial driveways with a minimum width of 24.00 feet and curbed radius entrances.

41. Applicant shall construct street improvements along the State Route 86 South Bound off Ramp to the satisfaction of Caltrans and the City Engineer. Improvements along the State Highway frontage shall be submitted to the City for review and approval as well as Caltrans District 8 for Review and Approval and shall include at a minimum:
113
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 12 ends

a. An emergency access/exit driveway may be installed onto the South Bound Off Ramp. This emergency access point may be gated with a Fire marshal approved Knox box. Access would be limited to emergency vehicles only and would have a hard passable surface suitable to support emergency vehicles and is incorporated into the landscape elements. This condition may apply at phase II of the project dependent on Fire Marshal and Caltrans review and approval.
b. Landscaping along the State Highway frontage shall be installed per Caltrans and Planning requirements and all frontage landscaping shall be complete and installed prior to the completion of phase 1 improvements. c. Intersection improvements at the State Route 86 south bound on and off ramps shall be completed in conformance with the Traffic Impact Analysis subject to approval from Caltrans. Initial traffic signal modifications and synchronization shall be required prior to occupancy of the first structure as detailed below. Additional staged improvements may be conditioned to later phases of the project subject to comments and conditions imposed by Caltrans at a later date.

42. Applicant shall construct and dedicate streets and street improvements to conform to the General Plan. All street improvements on Airport Blvd. shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate for occupancy for any on site structures. Airport Boulevard- Public Roadway as shown on the CUP and per these comments shall include the following:
a. Dedication of land along southbound lane within project limits is required. This street is classified as Major Arterial with Bicycle lanes with 118 feet of right-of-way as per City of Coachella General Plan b. Street measured at Center line to northerly curb shall have a width of 49-foot.
c. Applicant shall widen street along Airport Blvd. frontage to the Satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first COO.

It is noted that ultimate widening dimensions and layouts shall be dependent on review and approval of both the County of Riverside who owns and maintains the southerly half of the street, and Caltrans who owns and maintains the signalized intersection at Desert Cactus and Airport Blvd.
d. Applicant shall install a primary driveway to the business park with a signalized intersection at the southwest corner of the property and shall place the primary driveway access as far west as practical to achieve spacing from the existing signalized intersection at Desert Cactus and Airport Blvd.
114
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 13 ends

e. Applicant shall install a second driveway access point on the Airport Blvd. frontage that is limited to right hand turn movements. A raised concrete island shall be placed to force the right hand turn movements.

Note that this secondary driveway must be approved by Caltrans due to its proximity to the Caltrans jurisdictional traffic signal. f. Applicant shall install all sidewalk and curb and gutter transitions to uniformly connect to existing adjacent improvements and coordinate installation and/or relocation of fire hydrants, water meters, storm drain, wells, street lights and all other appurtenances as required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Applicant shall install a landscape median along the frontage of Airport Blvd. Proposed median must be approved by the County of Riverside and Caltrans with design considerations for access to the southerly properties.
h. Applicant shall construct all appurtenant roadway components within project limits such as, but not limited to: curb and gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramps, Street Lights, Landscape, Traffic control striping, legends, Traffic control signs and street name signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
i. Applicant shall also provide a 1.5 inch Mill and overlay of all existing pavement along the project frontage from curb face to curb face before the final acceptance of street frontage improvements by the City. j. Applicant shall construct three-way signalized intersection at the proposed property entrance as well as full ADA improvements at four corners of the intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Per Caltrans requirements, the Signal at Desert Cactus and Airport Blvd. must be synchronized with the traffic signal at the property entrance. k. Applicant shall construct signal modification and ADA ramp improvement at the northwest corner of Desert Cactus and Airport Boulevard. Applicant shall include signal synchronization with the property entrance traffic signal and any other modifications necessary to accomplish pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle movements as well as full Airport Blvd. improvements as listed herein. Note that this northwest intersection quadrant is the off ramp for State Route 86 and under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans.
l. Applicant shall provide street widening on Airport Blvd east of Desert Cactus Drive to allow for proper alignment of the east and west bound lanes, at the widened intersection. All turn lanes and thru lanes shall meet Caltrans minimum standards for lane offsets and lane tapers at an 115
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 14 ends

intersection per Caltrans standard highway design guidelines. This street widening shall also include relocation of the existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of Desert Cactus and Airport Boulevard. These improvements shall NOT include any modifications to the existing bridge structure or bridge components at the Airport Blvd/State Route 86 interchange. Note that this northeast intersection quadrant is the On Ramp for State Route 86 and under the jurisdictional control of Caltrans m. Applicant shall underground all existing dry utilities at westbound lane within project limits such as, but not limited to: power poles, telecommunication poles and all other existing dry utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

43. Per the approved Traffic Impact Analysis that is part of the projects Final CEQA, additional offsite impacts are associated with the project. All offsite improvements shall require the payment of cash in lieu contributions in accordance with the projects fair share contributions shown in Tables 8-2, 8-3, 8-4 and 8-5 of the TIA.

Applicant shall pay the highest listed value for any given intersection as listed in the referenced tables. Prior to the issuance of the fist building permit, Applicant shall deposit its fair-share payment for the two offsite improvements specified below, based on an agreed estimate of the cost of full reconstruction as identified in the TIA including design, project management and construction at standard prevailing wage rates.
a. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Phase I, Applicant shall make a cash in lieu fair share cash payment for the following intersections or street segments:

Location: Project Fair Share %
Intersection: Avenue 54 and Grapefruit Blvd.
(Signalize Intersection)
N/A – DIF/TUMF
funded intersection
Intersection: Tyler Street and Grapefruit Blvd.
(Signalize Intersection)
N/A – DIF/TUMF
funded intersection
Intersection: Palm Street and Grapefruit
(Signal Relocation/enhancement)

7.2%
Street: Grapefruit Blvd, Palm Street to Avenue
54 7.2%
116
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 15 ends

(Widen pavement to 6 lane major arterial)
Street: Grapefruit Blvd, Avenue 54 to Tyler
Street
(Widen pavement to 6 lane major arterial)
N/A – DIF/TUMF
funded street
segment
Intersection: Airport Blvd and Fillmore Street
(Signalize Intersection)
N/A – DIF funded
intersection
Street: SR 86 Southbound On and Off Ramps
(Add southbound exit lane)
N/A – DIF/TUMF
funded intersection
SEWER and WATER IMPROVEMENTS:

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

45. Applicant shall construct all off-site and on-site water improvements and any other incidental works necessary to complete the improvements. Size and location of sewer and water improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

46. A final soils report, compaction report and rough grading certificate shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.

47. Provide a set of proposed Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) for review and approval. The proposed CC&Rs shall contain the Association’s/Owner’s maintenance obligations with respect to various facilities including, but not limited to, right-of-way and private landscaping, private streets, sidewalks, utilities, street lights, and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) features. This document must be submitted to and approved by the City before it is submitted to any other governmental entity.

48. Prior to issuance of building permits, all required public improvements, including landscaping and lighting of the retention basins, and landscaped areas along the exterior streets, shall be completed or secured with appropriate sureties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An engineering final inspection is required. "Asbuilt" plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, such plans, once approved, shall be given to the city on compact disk in AutoCad format. All off-site and on-site 117
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 16 ends

improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of improvements for maintenance by the City.

49. The applicant’s Civil Engineer shall field verify and certify that all BMPs are designed, constructed, and functional in accordance with the approved WQMP.

PRIOR TO RELEASE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS/ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:

50. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, all public improvements, including landscaping and lighting of the retention basins, and landscaped areas along the exterior streets, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An engineering final inspection is required. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, such plans, once approved, shall be given to the city on compact disk in AutoCad format. All off-site and on-site improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of improvements for maintenance by the City.

Fire

51. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Fire Flow - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all buildings is required per CFC Appendix B. Prior to building permit issuance for new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation to show there exists a water system capable of delivering the required fire flow.

Specific design features may increase or decrease the required fire flow. Will Serve Letters from the responsible water purveyor are required prior to a map recordation.

52. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Hydrants - The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of fire hydrants, shall comply with CFC Appendix C and NFPA 24. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 400 feet from all portions of the exterior of the building along an approved route on a fire apparatus access road, unless otherwise approved by the fire department. In areas where new water mains are extended along streets and hydrants are not needed for protection of structures, standard fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet along streets for transportation hazards. Fire hydrants shall be at least 40 feet from the building it is serving. A fire hydrant shall be located within 20 to 100 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are 4” x 2 ½” x 2 ½” (super hydrant). Reference CFC as amended and NFPA 24.

53. Fire Department Access - Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided within 150 feet of all exterior portions of buildings, unless otherwise approved by the fire department. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of no less than 24 feet. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall provide an approved turn around. The minimum required turning radius of a fire 118
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 17 ends

apparatus access road is 38 feet outside radius and 14 feet inside radius. The construction of the fire apparatus access roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 75,000 lbs. Unless otherwise approved, the grade of a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 16 percent and the cross slope shall not exceed 2.5 percent. The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be a maximum of 6 percent grade change for 25 feet of approach/departure.

Reference CFC as amended, Coachella City Ordinance, and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

54. Fire Lane marking: Identification and marking of fire lanes, including curb details and signage, shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Department Standards.

55. Fire Department Access Turn Around – On-parcel dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall provide a bulb turnaround at the terminus measuring a minimum of 38 feet outside radius and 14 feet inside radius. Parallel parking around the perimeter of the bulb is acceptable provided the bulb outside turning radius is increased by 8 feet. In-lieu of a bulb, a hammer-head type turnaround is acceptable where the top of the “T” dimension is 120 feet with the stem in the center. Additional turnaround designs may be acceptable as approved by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

56. Secondary Access – Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department, dead end fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall provide independent egress/access from/to the area or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall be as remote as possible from the primary fire apparatus access road to reduce the possibility that both routes will be obstructed by a single emergency. Additional fire apparatus access roads based on the potential for impairment by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, anticipated magnitude of a potential incident, or other factors that could limit access may be required by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

57. Fire Department Building Construction Plan Review - Submittal of construction plans to the Fire Department will be required. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Department reviews the plans. These conditions will be based on the California Fire Code, California Building Code (CBC), and related codes/standards adopted at the time of construction plan submittal. Reference CFC as amended.

58. Fire Sprinkler System - All new commercial buildings and structures 3,600 square feet or larger will be required to install a fire sprinkler system. Reference CFC as amended.

59. Fire Alarm and Detection System - A water flow monitoring system and/or fire alarm system may be required as determined at time of building construction plan review. Reference CFC as amended.

60. Cannabis Facilities - Deferred submittals shall be required for Carbon Dioxide Gas 119
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 18 ends

Enrichments Systems and Plant Processing/Extraction Systems. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

61. Traffic Calming Devices - Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. Reference CFC as amended.

62. Gate Access - All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. These gates shall be provided with access to gate equipment or another method to open the gate if there is a power failure. (Manual gates shall not be locked unless a Knox padlock or Knox Box containing the key to the lock is installed in an approved location on the approach side of the gate). A pedestrian gate, if used to provide access, shall be a minimum 3 feet wide and provided with a Knox Box/Padlock if locked. Reference CFC as amended.

63. Fire Department Access Doors – If high piled storage will be utilized in the building, Fire Department Access Doors may be required every 150 feet along all portions of the interior of the building that are along the fire apparatus access road.

Reference CFC as amended.

64. Water Plans - If fire hydrants are required to be installed, applicant/developer shall furnish the water system fire hydrant plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow.

Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. Reference CFC as amended.

65. Emergency Responder Communication Coverage Systems - Projects that do not meet the exceptions set forth by the Coachella Office of the Fire Marshal shall provide plans for an emergency responder radio coverage system. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

66. Fire Planning Review: This planning case will also be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department’s Fire Planning Division for the cumulative impact on the Fire Department’s ability to provide an acceptable level of service. Additional requirements may be conditioned by Fire Planning to mitigate these impacts.

Questions for Fire Planning can be addressed to
[email protected].

PRIOR TO FINAL

67. Emergency Responder Radio Communication Compliance - Fire Inspection of and function testing of the site-specific impacts to the regional Emergency Responder Radio Communication System without repeater installations, is required at a time in the development that all walls, floors, roofs, and un-stocked fixtures are installed. The results of the testing shall determine if there are critical impacts to the regional radio system and the need for any mitigations within a specified timeline of the development completion.
120
Item 4.
80237.00833\44967574.1
Resolution No. PC 2026-09

Page 19 ends

EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION PC 2026-09
Draft and Final EIR
The Draft and Final EIR can be accessed at:
https://www.coachella.org/departments/development-services/environmental-reviews 121
Item 4.
122
Item 4.
123
Item 4.
124
Item 4.
125
Item 4.

Haagen Co LLC
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

COVER COVER / TITLE SHEET
A-010 SITE PLAN
A-011 COLORED SITE PLAN
A-101 RETAIL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN
A-201 RETAIL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A-102 SERVICE STATION FLOOR PLAN
A-202 SERVICE STATION ELEVATIONS
A-103 SMALL BUSINESS FLOOR PLAN
A-203 SMALL BUSINESS ELEVATIONS
A-104 BRICKYARD FLOOR PLAN
A-104.1 SELF-STORAGE FLOOR PLAN
A-204 BRICKYARD & SELF STORAGE

ELEVATIONS
A-105 SMALL WAREHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
A-205 SMALL WAREHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A-106 LARGE WAREHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
A-206 LARGE WAREHOUSE ELEVATIONS
SE-01 SITE ELEVATION / LINE OF SIGHT
TE-01 TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL
CM-01 COLOR AND MATERIALS BOARD
McKently Malak Architects
35 Hugus Alley, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
Contact: Herb Horowitz
T: 626.583.8348
ARCHITECT Hermann Design Group
6864 Indiana Avenue, Suite 104e
Riverside, CA 92506
Contact: Jose Estrada
T: 951.782.9335

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT
Haagen Co, LLC
12302 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Contact: Chris Fahey
T: 310.820.1200
CLIENT The Altum Group
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 219
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact: Rich Malacoff
T: 760.346.4750
CIVIL

ENGINEER
SHEET
INDEX
N.W.C. State Highway 86 & Airport Boulevard
Coachella, California
April 12, 2022
Coachella Airport Business Park
126
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-010

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PROJECT DATA
NORTH

VICINITY MAP
NOT TO
SCALE

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
N.W.C. OF STATE HWY. 86 &

AIRPORT BOULEVARD

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
HIGHWAY 111
HIGHWAY 86S

AIRPORT BOULEVARD

CVWD STORMWATER CHANNEL
AVENUE 54

FILLMORE STREET

POLK STREET

PALM STREET

DESERTCACTUSDRIVE

SITE SUMMARY

PROPOSED BUILDING AREA

BUILDING DATA

TOTAL SITE AREA

SITE AREA
APN# 763-330-013 21.56 AC
APN# 763-330-018
LARGE WAREHOUSE ±233,100 SF
SMALL WAREHOUSE ±96,000 SF
SMALL BUSINESS ±81,000 SF
PERSONAL VEHICLE STORAGE ±76,800 SF
SELF STORAGE ±128,600 SF
SERVICE STATION/ MINI MART ±4,000 SF
DRIVE-THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ±4,650 SF
TOTAL BUILDING AREA ±624,150 SF

9.62 AC
APN# 763-330-029 11.18 AC

42.36 AC
PARKING PROVIDED:

STANDARD: 583 STALLS
DISABLED: 44 STALLS
ELECTRIC / CLEAN AIR VEHICLES 55 STALLS
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 682 STALLS
PARKING REQUIRED:

Restaurant w/ Drive Through (1/45 sf of Customer Area + 1/200 sf Non Customer Area) Customer Area (±2,000 SF - 50%) = 44.4 Stalls
Non Customer Area (±2,000 SF - 50%) = 10 Stalls
Service Station = 5 Stalls
Large Warehouse (233,100 sf) 20,000 sf = 50 Stalls
213,100 sf = 213.1 Stalls
Small Warehouse (96,000 sf) 20,000 sf = 50 Stalls
76,000 sf = 76 Stalls
Small Business (81,000 sf) 20,000 sf = 50 Stalls
61,000 sf = 61 Stalls
Personal Vehicle Storage (76,800 sf) 20,000 sf = 50 Stalls 56,800 sf = 56.8 Stalls
Self Storage Office (625 sf) = 1.5 Stalls
GRAND TOTAL REQUIRED 667.8 Stalls or 668 Stalls

PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT
LARGE WAREHOUSE ±38' TO 50' HIGH
SMALL WAREHOUSE ±28' TO 32' HIGH
SMALL BUSINESS ±24' TO 28' HIGH
PERSONAL VEHICLE STORAGE ±24' TO 28' HIGH
SELF STORAGE ±24' TO 28' HIGH
RETAIL (GAS STATION & DRIVE THRU) ±24' TO 28' HIGH

BUILDING TYPE TYPE V-B (FULLY SPRINKLERED)

BUILDING DATA
1'-0" 17'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0"
00'-0"
PROJ. FIN. GRADE
4'-0"
T.O.FLOOD WALL
-3'-0"
B.O.BASIN
3 1
8" BLOCK WALL
27'-0"

ROAD WAY
CONC. CURB

PROPERTY LINE
RETENTION BASIN TYP. CROSS SECTION 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0"
00'-0"
PROJ. FIN. GRADE
4'-0"
T.O.FLOOD WALL
-3'-0"
B.O.BASIN
3 1
8" BLOCK WALL
27'-0"

ROAD WAY
CONC. CURB

PROPERTY LINE
RETENTION BASIN TYP. CROSS SECTION 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES:

Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans for the water system shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval. The water system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow. Fire hydrant(s) location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. An approved water supply for fire protection during construction shall be made available prior to the arrival of combustible materials on site. Reference 2016 California Fire Code (cfc) 507.5.1, 3312, Appendices B and C.

Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access for fire protection prior to any construction. Ref. CFC 503.1
Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings shall be provided with a knox box. The Knox Box shall be installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. Manual gates shall also be provided with approved emergency access (Knox) equipmentRef. CFC 506.1 NOTE:

1. FIRE HYDRANT TO BE LOCATED MAX. 300 FT. O.C. OR AS

APPROVED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

2. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION ON SITE ARE

REPRESENTED BY FH SYMBOL

3. 43 FT. LENGTH TEMPLATE WAS USED TO ILLUSTRATE FIRE

TRUCK PATH

4. MINIMUM TRUCK TURNING RADIUS ±30 FT.

H Y D
S T A T E H I G H W A Y 8 6

CVWD STORM WATER CHANNEL

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

CITY OF COACHELLA
CL
CL

AIRPORT BOULEVARD
FRWY. ON RAMP
FRWY. OFF RAMP

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-2
±44,500 S.F.

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-4
±48,800 S.F.

DESERT CACTUS DR.

MONUMENTATION
FRWY. OFF RAMP

CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY
(SITE AREA NOT INCLUDED)

3.44 ACRES

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-1A
±44,000 S.F.

LARGE WAREHOUSE ±233,100 SF
SELF STORAGE ±128,600 SF SMALL BUSINESS ±81,000 SF
SMALL WAREHOUSE ±96,000 SF
32 55
10 21 27
8 174 STALLS (LW-1 to LW-4)
109 STALLS (SB-13 to SB-18)
121 STALLS (SB-1 to SB-12)
35 STALLS (FC-1)
200'
40'
40'
13 13
87'
262'
300'
89'
45'
100'
100'
100'
45'100'
100'
100'
45'
45'
120'

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-1
±9,600 S.F.

RETAIL ±8,650 SF

FUEL CENTER
FC-1
±4,000 S.F.

RETAIL BLDG.

RB-1
±4,650 S.F.
5 22
9 10
12 25
27 10
9 101 STALLS (SW-1 to SW-5)
ROAD
ROAD
10x25 (37)
10x25 (34)
10x25 (27)
Office/
Caretaker
±625 S.F.
±7,750 S.F.
±9,250 S.F.
2 240'
80'

BRICK YARD
BY-1
±19,200 S.F.
240'
80'

BRICK YARD
BY-2
±19,200 S.F.

BRICK YARD
BY-3
±19,200 S.F.
320'
100'
2 3
300'
90'

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-3
±24,000 S.F.
320'
60'

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-5
±19,200 S.F.
6 6
5 320'
60'

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-4
±19,200 S.F.
6 45'
60'
320'
2 60'
±6,125 S.F.
14 268'
256'
30'-0"
16 ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
ROAD
16 ROAD
ROAD
100'
9 45' 45'
45'
45'
100'
8 SMALL BUSINESS
SB-1
±4,500 S.F. 100'
103 STALLS (BY-1 to BY-4)
100'
45'
14 PERSONAL VEHICLE STORAGE
6 5

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-1B
±22,400 S.F.
237'-9" 150'
186'
118'
±126'-2"
±256'

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-3A
±37,900 S.F.

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-3B
±35,500 S.F.
±262'
±88'-5"
±308'-5"
±136'-10"
±152'-10"
10 SECONDARY

POINT OF ACCESS
15'-0"
30' 15
30'-0"
30'-0"
30'-0"
35'-0"
35'-0"
30' 35'
25'-0" 25'-0"
35'-0"
35'
60'-0"
35'-0"
35'-0"
60'-0"
15'-0"
26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"
37'-0"
FIRE
LANE
34'-0"
FIRE
LANE
37'-0"
FIRE
LANE
10'-0"
20'-0"
20'
26'-0"
30'
42'-0"
15'-9"
20'
30'-0"
28'-0"
10' 20'
30'-0"
10'
9'-0"
20' 20'
8' 8'
15' 20'
20' 35'-0" 20'
10' 30'
9'
30' 20' 154'-0" 20' 9'
9'
40'-0"
20'
40'-0"
30'-0"
H Y D
26'-0" 26'-0"
30'-0"
30'-0" 30'-0" 40'-0"
23'-8"
30'-0"
FH
30'-0"
H Y D

H Y D FH

H Y DFH H Y D

FH H Y D
FH

H Y DFH

H Y DFH
H Y D
FH
H Y D
FH
H Y D
FH
H
FH Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
FH

FH FH FH
FH
FH
FH FH
FH
FH
FH
FH

FH FH FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
6 10
6 13
6 20
11 15'-0"
10'-0"
33'-6"
24'-0" 20' 20' 30'-0" 20' 20'
23'-6"
30'-0"
20'-0" 60'-0" 16'-0"
40'-0" 30'-0"
47'-0"
26'-0"
60'-0"
40'-0"
20'-0"
80'-0"
20'-0"
22'-6" 22'-6"
10x25 (21)
80'80'
120'
45'
100'
±6,750 S.F. ±5,250 S.F.

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-2
±24,000 S.F.
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
(E) PRIVATE TILE DRAIN

RETENTION BASIN

RETENTION BASIN
17'-1"
13 30'-0"28'-0"
20'-0"
28'-0"

RETENTION BASIN

RETENTION BASIN
SP-17
1 FLOOD WALL
SP-17
2 12
6 18 17
7 32'-0"
20' 20'

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VAN OO P L / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VAN OO P L / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

BRICK YARD
BY-4
±19,200 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-2
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-7
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-8
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-9
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-3
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-6
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-5
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-4
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-10
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-11
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-12
±4,500 S.F. 100'
45'
100'

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-18
±4,500 S.F.
100'
45' SMALL BUSINESS
SB-13
±4,500 S.F.
100'
45' SMALL BUSINESS
SB-16
±4,500 S.F.
100'
45' SMALL BUSINESS
SB-14
±4,500 S.F.
100'
45'

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-17
±4,500 S.F.
100'

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-15
±4,500 S.F.

FREEWAY ORIENTED

MESSAGE BOARD

PROJECT

PYLON SIGN
100'-0"
MIN.

PROJECT
SIGN

PROPOSED

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
PATIO
20'-6"
59'-0"
R.O.W.
10' PARKWAY

LANDSCAPE
5 7
10 8
20'-0"
20'
7 23
12'-0"
23 20'-0"
8 14'-10"
13'-5"
5' BIKE LANE
10'-0"
59'-0"
R.O.W.
143'-9"
28'-3"
34'-6"
±76,800 SF
Main
Entry
Gate

FIRE ACCESS
GATE
260'-0"

CONCRETE
APRON

TURF BLOCK
20'-0"
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 140'-0"

REMOVABLE
PIPE

BOLLARDS
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
315'-0"
315'-0"

PROPOSED SUBSTATION
30'-0"
ACCESS
30'-0"
ACCESS
± 135,000 SF
(APPROX. AREA)
5x10 (52)
10x10 (26)
10x15 (26)
10x15 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x15 (26)
5x10 (52)
10x20 (26)
10x10 (26)
10x15 (26)
±625 S.F.
±5,200 S.F.
±5,200 S.F.
±7,800 S.F.
±7,800 S.F.
±10,400 S.F.
±10,400 S.F.
3 STALLS (SELF STORAGE)
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
FH
FH
FH
FH
(E) PRIVATE TILE DRAIN TO BE REMOVE
5x10 (52)
10x10 (26)
10x15 (26)
10x15 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x20 (26)
10x15 (26)
5x10 (52)
10x20 (26)
10x10 (26)
10x15 (26)
±5,200 S.F.
±5,200 S.F.
±7,800 S.F.
±7,800 S.F.
±10,400 S.F.
±10,400 S.F.

H Y D
260'-0"
150'-0" 150'-0" 150'-0" 150'-0"
15'-0"
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1

FIRE ACCESS
GATE
30'-0"
FIRE
ACCESS
GATE

FIRE ACCESS
GATE
FIRE
ACCESS
GATE

CL CL CL

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R / I

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R / I

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R / I

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
12'-0"
36 STALLS (RB-1)
7 1

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 100'-0"
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100'
100' 50' 100' 200' 300'
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SP-18
127
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

COLORED SITE PLAN
A-011
128
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

FLOOR PLAN
A-101
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
1 A
50'-0"
100'-0"
40'-0"
20'-0"
C
B
50'-0"
2 4'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
4'-0" 2'-0"
32'-0"
2'-0"

ENTRY / EXIT

ENTRY / EXIT
EXIT

PICK-UP
WINDOW
EXIT

OUTDOOR SEATING

TRASH ENCLOSURE

LANDSCAPE
ORDER

MENU BOARD

PRE-ORDER

LANDSCAPE

CLEARANCE BAR
FIRE

HYDRANT
14'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0" 2'-0"
7'-0"
2'-0"
14'-0"
2'-0"
7'-0"
2'-0"
10'-0"
3'-0" 3'-0"
12'-0"
3'-0"
12'-0"
1 2
4'-0"
1'-0"
3'-6"
23'-0"
1'-0"
3'-6"
4'-0"
30'-0"
A
C
B

P A R K I N G S T A L L S

P A R K I N G S T A L L S P A R K I N G S T A L L S

PROPOSED
RETAIL BUILDING W/ D.T.
± 4,650 S.F.

S I D
E
W
A L K

L A N D S C A P E D P L A N T E R
1 A201
3 A201
2 A201
4 A201 H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-101

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

RETAIL BUILDING W/ DRIVE THRU
RB-1
RETAIL

KEY PLAN
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'
129
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

ELEVATIONS
A-201
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants
130
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
FIRE
C

HYDRANT

P A R K I N G S T A L L S
1 12'-0"
2 A
C
100'-0"
B

PROPOSED

SERVICE STATION
± 4,000 S.F.

ENTRY / EXIT
3'-0" 20'-0" 2'-0" 32'-0" 2'-0" 29'-0"
A
C
B
1 2
27'-0" 3'-0" 12'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0" 2'-0" 48'-0"
EXIT

P A R K I N G S T A L L S

TRASH ENCLOSURE
1 A202
2 A202
3 A202
4 A202

LINE OF CONCRETE SLAB

UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS

LINE OF FUEL PUMP CANOPY ABOVE
40'-0"
14'-0" 2'-0" 24'-0"
12'-0" 3'-0" 25'-0"
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-102

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

SERVICE STATION
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

KEY PLAN
FC-1

SERVICE STATION
A-102

FLOOR PLAN
131
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

ELEVATIONS
A-202
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants
132
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-103

FLOOR PLAN
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
H
Y
D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
COL.COL.COL.

L A N D S C A P E D A R E A

TRASH ENCLOSURE

EXIT ELECTRICAL ROOM FSR EXIT
1 A
100'-0"
20'-0"
B C
2 50'-0" 50'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
A B C
28'-0" 28'-0" 20'-0"
45'-0"
2'-0" 13'-0"
14'-0" 2'-0" 25'-0" 3'-0" 12'-0" 3'-0" 25'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" A
100'-0"
20'-0"
B C
50'-0" 50'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
A B C
28'-0" 28'-0" 20'-0"
14'-0" 2'-0" 25'-0" 3'-0" 12'-0" 3'-0" 25'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0"

ENTRY / EXIT ENTRY / EXIT
1 2

EXIT FSR ELECTRICAL ROOM EXIT

ENTRY / EXIT ENTRY / EXIT

PROPOSED

SMALL BUSINESS
± 4,500 S.F.

PROPOSED

SMALL BUSINESS
± 4,500 S.F.

P A R K I N G S T A L L S P A R K I N G S T A L L S

L A N D S C A P E D A R E A L A N D S C A P E D A R E A

L A N D S C A P E D A R E A

PROPOSED

SMALL BUSINESS
± 4,500 S.F.
1 A203
3 A203
2 A203
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-103

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL SMALL BUSINESS
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

KEY PLAN
SB-15
SB-7 SB-4 SB-1
SB-8 SB-5 SB-2
SB-9 SB-6 SB-3
SB-10
SB-11
SB-12
SB-14 SB-13
SB-16
SB-17 SB-18

SMALL BUSINESS
133
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-203
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants

ELEVATIONS
134
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

FLOOR PLAN
A-104
1 A
60'-0"
240'-0"
40'-0"
80'-0"
COL.
44'-0"

PROPOSED

BRICK YARD
± 19,200 S.F.

ENTRY / EXIT

B C D E
3 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0"
2'-0" 14'-0" 14'-0" 2'-0" 44'-0" 44'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" 14'-0" 2'-0" 2 40'-0"
1 3
2 COL.COL.

SECTIONAL DOOR SECTIONAL DOOR ENTRY / EXIT ENTRY / EXIT SECTIONAL DOOR SECTIONAL DOOR ENTRY / EXIT

EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT

LINE OF CLEARSTORY ABOVELINE OF CLEARSTORY ABOVELINE OF CLEARSTORY ABOVELINE OF CLEARSTORY ABOVE COL.

A B C D E
5'-6" 1'-6" 14'-0" 2'-0" 31'-0" 2'-0" 8'-0" 2'-0" 31'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" 1'-6" 11'-0" 1'-6" 14'-0" 2'-0" 31'-0" 2'-0" 8'-0" 2'-0" 31'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" 1'-6" 5'-6"

P A R K I N G S T A L L S

S I D E W A L K
1 A204
4 A204
2 A204
3 A204
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-104

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL BRICKYARD
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

KEY PLAN

BRICKYARD
BY-1
BY-2
BY-3
BY-4
135
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-104.1

FLOOR PLAN
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
A
25'-0"
2'-0"
B
1 25'-0"
2 PROPOSED

SELF STORAGE
± 625 S.F.

ENTRY / EXIT

SLIDING GATE

LANDSCAPE PLANTER

L A N D S C A P E D P L A N T E R

S I D E W A L K

P A R K I N G S T A L L S

LANDSCAPE PLANTER

S T O R A G E U N I T S

SELF STORAGE OFFICE

S T O R A G E U N I T S

S T O R A G E U N I T S
5 A204
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-104.1

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL SELF STORAGE
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

KEY PLAN

SELF STORAGE
OFFICE
136
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-204
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants

ELEVATIONS
137
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

FLOOR PLAN
A-105
H Y D
1 3
2 3
A205
D
D 1
A205
2 E A205
E
F
F
G
G
H
H
9'-0"
2'-0"
420'-0"
14'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0"
14'-0" 2'-0" 44'-0" 44'-0" 2'-0" 28'-0" 2'-0" 44'-0" 44'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" 14'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"
17'-0"
2'-0"
4'-6"
2'-0"
5'-1"
2'-0"
12'-0" 13'-10" 12'-0" 5'-1" 4'-6" 17'-0" 9'-0" 17'-0" 4'-6" 5'-1" 12'-0" 13'-10" 12'-0" 5'-1" 4'-6" 13'-0" 4'-6" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" COL.COL.COL.COL.

PROPOSED

SMALL WAREHOUSE
± 14,400 S.F.

ENTRY / EXIT

SERVICE

ENTRY / EXIT ENTRANCE ROLL UP DOOR

EXIT EXIT

ENTRY / EXIT

SERVICE

ENTRY / EXIT ENTRANCE ROLL UP DOOR

SERVICE

ROLL UP DOOR ENTRANCE

EXIT EXIT

ENTRY / EXIT

SERVICE

ROLL UP DOOR ENTRANCE
EXIT
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
H Y D
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1

TRASH ENCLOSURE
1 A B
3 2
A B
4 A205
6'-11" 2'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" 5'-1" 2'-0" 4'-6" 2'-0" 17'-0" 2'-0" 9'-0" 2'-0" 60'-0"
2'-0" 28'-0"
40'-0"
80'-0"
40'-0"
COL.

ENTRY / EXIT

SERVICE

ROLL UP DOOR ENTRANCE

EXIT EXIT
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-105

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL SMALL WAREHOUSE
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

KEY PLAN
SW-1 SW-2
SW-4 SW-5
SW-3
138
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-205
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants

ELEVATIONS
139
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

FLOOR PLAN
A-106
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D
H Y D

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VAN OP OL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EVCLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A R I / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR / VANPOOL / EV
H Y D
1 A

3.1 5
B G H

EXIT ENTRY / EXIT
EXIT

RECEIVING AREA

LOADING DOCK
10' HIGH SCREEN WALL

C D E F
1 32'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 36'-0" 20'-0"
288'-0"
10'-0" 4'-6" 21'-0" 4'-6" 5'-0" 4'-6" 21'-0" 4'-6" 21'-0" 4'-0" 20'-0" 4'-0" 52'-0" 4'-0" 40'-0" 4'-0" 40'-0" 40'-0"
163'-9"
2 43'-9" 40'-0"
3 4
5 2
3 4

B C D E F H
COL.COL.COL.COL.COL.

COL.COL.COL.COL.COL.

COL.COL.COL.COL.

PROPOSED

LARGE WAREHOUSE
± 44,500 S.F.
1 20'-0" 20'-0"
7'-0" 33'-0"
13'-0" 5'-0" 18'-0" 5'-0" 18'-0" 5'-0" 18'-0" 5'-0" 67'-0" 4'-0" 40'-0" 4'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" 24'-0" 2'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 28'-0" 4'-0" 40'-0" 4'-0"
8'-0"

S I D E W A L K

TRASH ENCLOSURE
FIRE

HYDRANT

P A R K I N G S T A L L S
S I D
E
W
A L K

P A R K I N G S T A L L S
1 A206
2 A206
3 A206
4 A206
Coachella Airport Business Park

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co., LLC 12302 EXPOSITION BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064

04.11.2022 18028TMA

FLOOR PLAN
A-106

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
1 inch = feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
0 11'
8' 4' 8' 16' 24'

TYPICAL LARGE WAREHOUSE

KEY PLAN

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-1A LW-1B LW-2
LW-3A LW-3B
LW-4
140
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 A-206
Note: Signage shown on the elevations for graphic purpose only and does not represent the use or actual tenants

ELEVATIONS
141
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 SE-01

SITE ELEVATION

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-2
±44,500 S.F.

LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-1A
±44,000 S.F.

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-1
±9,600 S.F.
9 5
12 SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-3
±24,000 S.F.

SMALL WAREHOUSE
6 6
5 SMALL WAREHOUSE
6 14
16 ROAD
6 LARGE WAREHOUSE
LW-1B
±22,400 S.F.

H
D Y
H
D Y
H
D Y
H
D Y
H
D Y H
D Y
H
D Y
H
D Y
H
D Y
FH

FH FH FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
6 10
6 13
6 20

SMALL WAREHOUSE
SW-2
±24,000 S.F.
(E) PRIVATE TILE DRAIN
7 CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-18
±4,500 S.F.

SMALL BUSINESS
SB-16
±4,500 S.F.

SB-17

SMALL BUSINESS
±4,500 S.F.

SB-15

SMALL BUSINESS
±4,500 S.F.

MESSAGE BOARD

PROJECT

PYLON SIGN
NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1 NO PARKING - FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

L I N E O F S I G H T

DIESEL REGULAR MID-GRADE PREMIUM
87 89 91

REGULAR MID-GRADE PREMIUM

L I N E O F S I G H T
Coachella Airport Business Park
Coachella, California
Haagen Co, LLC

04.12.2022 18028TMA

SITE ELEVATION
EL07
Site Elevation 1 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
Airport Boulevard Site Elevation 2 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
State Highway 86
Site Elevation 3 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
State Highway 86
Site Elevation 4 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
State Highway 86
Site Elevation 5 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
State Highway 86
2 SE-01
3 SE-01
4 SE-01
142
Item 4.
3 5 H u g u s A l l e y S u i t e 2 0 0
P a s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3
T : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 4 8 F : 6 2 6.5 8 3.8 3 8 7

04.12.2022 18028TMA
NWC State Highway 86 and Airport Road

COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA
Haagen Co LLC Coachella Airport Business Park
12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064 TE-01

TRASH ENCLOSURE
6 A300
4 A300
3 A300

CONCRETE APRON
1% SLOPE
6" HIGH x 10"

WIDE SIDE
CONC. CURB
CONC. CURB

PER SITE PLAN
4x4x3/8 STL TUBE POST

WELDED TO BASE STEEL

PLATE AND BEAM
ABOVE, TYP.

PAVEMENT

MARKER AND

STRIPING
(CONC. APRON) - 6" CONC.

SLAB 'NATURAL GRAY'
REINFORCED W/ #4 REBAR
@ 18" O.C. EACH WAY TYP.
8x8x16 CONC. BLOCK WITH
#5 @ 16" O.C. EA. WAY,
GROUT ALL CELLS SOLID.

GROUT TO MATCH WALL
FINISH. (f'm = 1,500 PSI)
20 GA. VERCO METAL PAN
DECKING, SLOPE AT 2% MIN.

SLOPE TO REAR. COLOR TO
MATCH TRELLIS WITH (4) 1/2"
PUDDLE WELDS @ 12" O.C.

EA. WAY BUTTON PUNCH @
24" O.C. SIDE LAP
4x8x1/4" STEEL TRELLIS @
24" O.C., PAINTED. 1/4"

STEEL CLOSURE PLATE
WELDED EA. END, TYP.
6x12x3/8" STEEL BEAM,

PAINTED

NO PARKING
TRASH
BIN
(NIC)

RECYCLE
BIN
(NIC)
10'
40'-10"
13'-4"

CANE BOLT KEEPER

HOLE (DRILLED) WITH

METAL SLEEVE
5 A300
1% MAX.
6" HIGH x 10"

WIDE REAR
CONC. CURB
10"
10"
10"
2% SLOPE
6'-6" 2'-6"
9'
6'-6" 2'-3"
8'-9"
2% SLOPE

METAL DECK ROOF, PAINTED

TO MATCH TRELLIS
4x12x3/8" STEEL BEAM WITH ENDS FILLED

AND GROUND SMOOTH (PAINTED)
COLOR: SW 7048 'URBANE BRONZE'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS
METAL GATE & HARDWARE; PAINT
COLOR: SW 7048 'URBANE BRONZE'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS

SMOOTH STUCCO
COLOR: SW 0077 'CLASSIC FRENCH GRAY'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS

STEEL POST (PAINTED)
COLOR: SW 7048 'URBANE BRONZE'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS
3x8x1/4" STEEL TRELLIS; PAINTED
COLOR: SW 7048 'URBANE BRONZE'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS

SMOOTH STUCCO
COLOR: SW 0077 'CLASSIC FRENCH GRAY'
BY: SHERWIN WILLIAMS
6'-6" 2'-3"
8'-9"
6'-6" 2'-6"
9'
T.E. DOORS
4YD4YD4YD4YD4YD4YD
1% SLOPE
TRASH
BIN
(NIC)
TRASH
BIN
(NIC)
TRASH
BIN
(NIC)
TRASH
BIN
(NIC)

NO PARKING
2% SLOPE2% SLOPE
1% SLOPE

LINE OF ROOF
ABOVE

LANDSCAPED AREA
4'-2"

LANDSCAPED AREA
Trash Enclosure - Floor Plan 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Trash Enclosure - Roof Plan 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Front Elevation 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Right Side Elevation 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Rear Elevation 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Left Side Elevation 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

DECORATIVE WALL CAP

DECORATIVE WALL CAP
Coachella Airport Business Park
Coachella, California
Haagen Co, LLC 12302 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90064

05.29.2020 18028TMA

TRASH ENCLOSURE
TE-01 143
Item 4.
144
Item 4.
145
Item 4.
146
Item 4.
147
Item 4.
148
Item 4.
149
Item 4.
150
Item 4.

BY-3
±19,200 S.F.

BRICK YARD
BY-4

HAAGEN COMPANY, LLC

COACHELLA, CA

COACHELLA AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK
77-899 WOLF RD.

PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132

PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/22
92211

HERMANN DESIGN GROUP
SUITE 102

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

BRICK YARD AREA
LP-2
151
Item 4.

H Y D
EXIT FSR Electrical Room EXIT
EXIT Electrical Room FSR EXIT

SMALL BUSINESS

HAAGEN COMPANY, LLC

COACHELLA, CA

COACHELLA AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK
77-899 WOLF RD.

PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132

PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/22
92211

HERMANN DESIGN GROUP
SUITE 102

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

ENTRY LANDSCAPE AT AIRPORT BLVD

SMALL BUSINESS PICNIC AREA
LP-3
152
Item 4.

Final Environmental Impact Report
Coachella Airport Business Park Development
SCH No. 2023040106
March 2026
Prepared for:

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

Alum Group
44-600 Village Court, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
MNS Engineers, Inc.
3850 Vine Street, Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507
153
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1
Table of Contents
Coachella Airport Business Park i
Final Environmental Impact Report
Table of Contents

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

2.0 Responses to Comments.............................................................................................. 2

3.0 Errata ........................................................................................................................ 284

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program........................................................ 296 154
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1
Table of Contents
Coachella Airport Business Park ii
Final Environmental Impact Report
List of Tables
Table 1: List of Public Agencies, Tribes, and Organizations Commenting on the Draft EIR..................... 3 Table 2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist....................................................................298 List of Attachments
Attachment B2: AQ/GHG/HRA Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (Vista Environmental, October 2, 2025)
Attachment C2: Biological Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (Rincon Consultants, November 3, 2025)
Attachment D2: Cultural Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (Chronicle Heritage, October 2, 2025)
Attachment H2: Noise Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (AMBIENT Air Quality and Noise Consulting, October 21, 2025)
Attachment I2: Transportation Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (Integrated Engineering Group, October 14, 2025)
Attachment I3: Supplemental Transportation Exhibits (Replacement of the Airport Boulevard Bridge Over Whitewater River Project, Preliminary Project Overview Interim Striping) (Dokken Engineering, September 2024)
155
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

1.0 Introduction
Coachella Airport Business Park 1
Final Environmental Impact Report

1.0 Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) Section 15088, the City of Coachella, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Coachella Airport Business Park EIR (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023040106).

The Draft EIR for the proposed Coachella Airport Business Park (the “Project” or “Proposed Project”) was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on July 21, 2025, and concluded on September 3, 2025.

The Final EIR consists of the following components:
• Section 1.0 – Introduction
• Section 2.0 – Response to Comments
• Section 3.0 – Errata
• Section 4.0 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Due to its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with this document; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitutes “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 156
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 2
Final Environmental Impact Report

2.0 Responses to Comments
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Coachella, as the lead agency, evaluated the written comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023040106) for the Project and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below in Table 1, List of Public Agencies, Tribes, and Organizations Commenting on the Draft EIR. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.
157
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 3
Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 1: List of Public Agencies, Tribes, and Organizations Commenting on the Draft EIR Comment
Letter
No.

Agency, Tribe, or Organization Letter Dated
Agencies
1 Desert Sands Unified School District July 30, 2025
2 City of La Quinta August 7, 2025
3 County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency September 2, 2025 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2, 2025
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District September 3, 2025 Tribes
6 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians July 21, 2025 7 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians July 23, 2025
Organizations
8 Southern California Gas Company July 21, 2025
9 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
10 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
11 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
12 Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility via Lozeau Drury, LLP August 6, 2025 13 Advocates for the Environment September 3, 2025
Comment Letters Received After the Close of the Comment Period 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife September 4, 2025 15 California Department of Transportation September 10, 2025 16 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
September 11, 2025
17 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 21, 2025
158
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 4
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 1 (page 1 of 1)
159
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 5
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 1
Yaneli Castillo
Desert Sands Unified School District
July 30, 2025
1-1 This comment states that the Project is not within Desert Sands Unified School District boundaries. Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. 160
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 6
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 2 (page 1 of 1)
161
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 7
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 2
Scott Nespor, Senior Planner
City of La Quinta
August 7, 2025
2-1 The commenter states that the City of La Quinta has no comments at this time. Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
162
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 8
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 3 (page 1 of 3)
163
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 9
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 3 (page 2 of 3)
164
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 10
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 3 (page 3 of 3)
165
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 11
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 3
Umer Ahmed, Engineering Project Manager
County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA) September 2, 2025
3-1 This comment provides a general summary of the proposed Project. The comment also notes that the County previously provided comments regarding the Coachella Airport Business Park on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) in 2023 pertaining to Parking and Circulation, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. Those comments were previously addressed in the DEIR which was circulated on July 21, 2025.

Responses to specific comments newly enumerated in this comment are provided below. As it pertains to the Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project, this project is an independent project being undertaken by Riverside County that was subject to its own environmental review, as noted in this comment. To clarify the analysis in the Draft EIR, the Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project has been added to the list of cumulative projects at the commenter’s request (see Response 3-4 below, and revised Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in the Draft EIR provided in Section 3.0 of this FEIR). In addition, exhibits depicting the proposed bridge improvements have been added to DEIR Section 4.17, Transportation as Exhibits 4.17-1 and

4.17-2 (see Section 3.0 of this FEIR). These clarifications and enhancements to the Draft EIR do not provide significant new information to the DEIR that would require recirculation because the additions do not change the DEIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a significant adverse effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an impact.
3-2 This comment requests information regarding the necessary improvements and geometrics of the proposed intersection signalization and proposed main access point on Airport Boulevard for the Coachella Airport Business Park Project in the Project Site Circulation and Parking section in the DEIR. Please refer to Attachment I3, Supplemental Transportation Exhibits (Replacement of the Airport Boulevard Bridge Over Whitewater River Project, Preliminary Project Overview Interim Striping) (Dokken Engineering, September 2024), of this FEIR, which provides the information requested by the commenter. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.

These exhibits will be added to Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR (see Section 3.0, Errata). This comment does not assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.

3-3 The commenter requests that an Encroachment Permit from TLMA be added to Table 2.5, Required Permits and Approvals, in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the DEIR for any work within County right-of-way along Airport Boulevard. This change has been made to page 2.0- 9 of the DEIR (Table 2.5) and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. 166
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 12
Final Environmental Impact Report
3-4 This comment requests that the Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project (approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on 6/13/23), the Coachella Valley Water District’s Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, and other known future infrastructure projects in the vicinity, be added to the Cumulative Projects lists in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in the DEIR.

Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that “[A]n EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable...” Cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3), “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” An adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts requires either: (1) “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2) “a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.” The Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project (SCH No. 2023030456) adopted a Negative Declaration on May 16, 2023, and filed a Notice of Determination on June 30, 2023. Those documents analyzed hydrology, traffic, and noise issues, finding only incremental construction noise and short-term emissions relevant. Although that project was found not to have significant individual impacts, its temporary construction emissions and traffic detours fall within the same geographic area as the proposed project and were therefore considered in the cumulative impact assessment in the DEIR. Refer to Section 3.0, Errata, of this FEIR, which shows the addition of the Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project to the cumulative projects list as well as the addition of exhibits depicting the proposed bridge improvements in DEIR Section 4.17, Transportation. Construction noise and short-term emissions generated by the Airport Boulevard Bridge Replacement Project, when added to the cumulative baselines, would not exceed any applicable thresholds, so the combined effect of these projects would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative construction noise and short-term emissions impacts are therefore less than significant.

The CVWD’s Stormwater Channel Improvement Project (SCH. No. 2015111067) adopted a FEIR on November 12, 2019. That document analyzed hydrology and flood-control impacts and found that the proposed project’s incremental contribution to flood conveyance was minimal when considered in combination with the referenced channel improvement project and other projects in the watershed because it: 1) reduced flood risk and increased conveyance capacity, thereby improving baseline conditions for the drainage area; 2) did not alter the fundamental flood-conveyance function or increase upstream runoff beyond previously mitigated conditions; and 3) other planned or approved drainage/flood control projects were of the same subsurface/overland flow system. Hydrology and flood-control impacts, when added to the cumulative baselines, would not exceed any applicable thresholds, so the combined effect of these projects would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative hydrology and flood-control impacts are therefore less than significant. At the commenter’s request, these projects have been added to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the DEIR and 167
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 13
Final Environmental Impact Report
are reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of this FEIR, but this addition does not change any of the impact analysis or conclusions in the DEIR.
3-5 This comment requests that, within the Public Services section of the DEIR, additional details be included regarding any emergency services access conflicts with the Desert View Mobile Home Park. Exhibit 2.4, Site Plan, of the DEIR shows a proposed signalized intersection at the eastern bridge abutment; however, a driveway entrance into the Desert View Mobile Home Park is located just to the east of this intersection. Please also refer to Attachment I3, Supplemental Transportation Exhibits (Replacement of the Airport Boulevard Bridge Over Whitewater River Project, Preliminary Project Overview Interim Striping) (Dokken Engineering, September 2024), of this FEIR, which provides the clarifying information requested by the commenter. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.

These exhibits will be added to Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR, as shown in Section

3.0, Errata, of this FEIR. This comment does not assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
3-6 This comment repeats the requested revisions noted in Response 3-5 for the Transportation section of the DEIR. In addition, the commenter notes that, although the City of Coachella’s General Plan identifies Airport Boulevard as a 6-lane urban arterial in the buildout classifications for purposes of traffic analysis, there are no known programmed projects or environmental documentation to widen Airport Boulevard from two-lanes to four- or six-lanes in the future. The commenter further requests that a discussion of any necessary future improvements anticipated with the widening of Airport Boulevard to six-lanes also be included. Currently, the existing bridges over Union Pacific Railroad, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and State Route 86 (SR-86) can only accommodate up to four lanes and future improvements likely would be needed in order to construct a 6-lane urban arterial at this location.

The TLMA’s comment letter was also reviewed, and further clarifying responses were provided by Integrated Engineering Group in the Coachella Airport Business Park Supplemental Transportation Analysis (Transportation Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum), dated October 14, 2025 (provided as Attachment I2 of this FEIR). It should be noted that this attachment addresses the specific comments raised in the TLMA comment letter but does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the Traffic Impact Analysis contained in the DEIR Appendices.

Based on this Technical Memorandum, appropriate ROW has been dedicated along the property frontage to accommodate potential widening of Airport Boulevard to 6 lanes in accordance with the General Plan buildout cross section, and as such, the Project would not conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element. However, based on future buildout of the area, a 4-lane roadway will accommodate the future growth forecasted by the regional 168
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 14
Final Environmental Impact Report
transportation model. As such, no revisions to the Project’s Transportation Analysis or the DEIR are warranted.
3-7 The commenter provides the following comments and requested revisions for the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis document:
• Counts were collected on January 18, 2024. January 15 was a Holiday. Per the County’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines traffic data should not be collected on weeks that include a holiday and non-school session time period unless approved by the Transportation Department.

Based on additional information from Integrated Engineering Group, scheduling of the traffic data collection was coordinated and approved by the City of Coachella to be conducted on the Thursday after the Monday holiday, with two days in between for traffic to normalize. Schools were in session. Accordingly, January 18, 2024, was an appropriate day to conduct traffic counts. As such, no revisions to the Project’s Transportation Analysis or DEIR are warranted.
• Figure 1-2 (Trip Distributions) is difficult to follow; provide directional distributions by movement at all intersections.

Integrated Engineering Group has revised Figure 1-2 accordingly. Please refer to Attachment I2 of this FEIR for the updated figure. The revised Attachment will be attached to the EIR. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.

• Provide a separate pass-by distribution figure.

Integrated Engineering Group has provided a separate pass-by distribution figure.

Please refer to Attachment I2 of this FEIR for this information. The updated document includes updated intersection volume figures including new Figure 1-2b to show passby trip distribution and assignment. Attachment I2 also includes updated intersection operation analysis for the Project driveway under all scenarios that include a Project phase. The revised Attachment will be attached to the EIR. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.
• Figure 1-3 to 1-5: trip assignment doesn’t include pass-by trips. What happened to the pass-by volumes?
169
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 15
Final Environmental Impact Report
Integrated Engineering Group has provided the pass-by trips in the trip assignment.

Please refer to Attachment I2 of this FEIR for this information. The revised Attachment will be attached to the EIR.
• Intersection 7 is split maintenance. Per the County’s Guidelines, the Project has a direct impact and is required to mitigate (construct improvements) due to LOS degrading from acceptable during the Existing scenario to unacceptable during EAP scenario.

As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR (page 4.17-3), in 2018, the State CEQA Guidelines were amended to state that automobile delay, as measured by LOS and other similar measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion cannot be considered a significant impact on the environment (PRC Section 21099(b)(3)); State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3). Information provided related to LOS is provided for informational purposes only and to ensure consistency with the General Plan and is not provided to analyze potentially significant CEQA impacts of the proposed Project. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR, this location (Intersection 7, Avenue 54 and Grapefruit Boulevard) is deficient in all Opening Year Baseline scenarios prior to addition of the Project. Therefore, this is a cumulative deficiency. Per the County guidelines, where improvements identified in the TUMF or other funding mechanism that can provide the target LOS, payment of the applicable TUMF or DIF will be considered as the Project’s cumulative contribution towards the identified improvements and will be implemented through conditions of approval. It should be noted that this improvement is identified in the TUMF.

Therefore, the DEIR, at pages 4.17-16, 4.17-17, 4.17-20, 4.17-21, 4.17-24, 4.17-25,

4.17-28 and 4.17-29, appropriately identifies that the Project will contribute toward this improvement via fee payment to City of Coachella DIF and CVAG TUMF programs for Projects B-349 (Grapefruit Boulevard from Avenue 52 to Avenue 54) and B-350 (Grapefruit Boulevard from Avenue 54 to Avenue 56).
• Intersection 1 is split maintenance. Per the County’s Guidelines, the Project has a direct impact and is required to mitigate (construct improvements) due to LOS degrading from acceptable during the Existing scenario to unacceptable during EAP scenario.

As discussed above and explained in DEIR Section 4.17, Transportation, this location is deficient in Opening Year 2033 Baseline scenario prior to addition of the Project.

Therefore, this should be considered a cumulative deficiency. Additionally, per the County Guidelines, improvements may be provided through the TUMF network or other funding mechanisms, which is how the Project is satisfying its fair share contribution obligation here.
• Intersection 6: the County has concerns with queuing at this intersection. SimTraffic output sheets (Page 441 of 492) shows that the queues may be longer than 333’.

Additional concerns in the southbound direction: the southbound through queues 170
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 16
Final Environmental Impact Report
extend past the right turn storage. The Project is required to mitigate. Provide Synchro files to the County for review.

As discussed in Attachment I2 of this FEIR , the queue was analyzed using Synchro queue output, not SimTraffic. Additionally, the southbound and northbound through movement deficiency will be addressed by TUMF Project B-350. This Project is a roadway segment improvement to Grapefruit Boulevard, which is the original alignment of California State Route 111 (SR 111) and is locally maintained, and runs in a northwesterly direction from Avenue 56th at the south to Avenue 54th at the north.

The existing condition of Grapefruit Blvd varies between a 2-lane and 4-lane arterial roadway, and Project improvements are described in Table 4-3 of Appendix I of the DEIR, which include upgrading this segment of Grapefruit Blvd to a 6-lane arterial roadway.

The Project is within the TUMF network and prioritized for funding, along with other transportation improvement projects within the Coachella Valley1 . The Project will be
responsible for paying into the TUMF program. Per the County guidelines, improvements identified in the TUMF or other funding mechanism that address deficiencies will be considered to adequately mitigate the Project’s cumulative contribution towards the identified deficiency and will be implemented through conditions of approval. Since the City will include a condition of approval requiring the payment of TUMF fees, this standard requirement is equivalent to the County’s standard, and no additional analysis or Mitigation Measures are warranted. • Clarify the recommended lane configurations at the new signalized driveway. A dedicated left turn lane is required. Is a dedicated right-turn lane provided? Is the Project proposing the widening of the bridge? Provide the site plan and truck turning template to the County for review.

A dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane will be provided at the driveway per the intersection improvement plan. For further clarification, a detailed depiction of the intersection design is shown in Exhibits 4.17-1 and 4.17-2, which are provided in Section 3.0, Errata, of this FEIR and will be included in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR. The Project will not widen the bridge. It should be noted that these attachments do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. This comment does not assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
3-8 The commenter concludes by requesting continued coordination between the County of Riverside Transportation Department, City of Coachella, Haagen Co., LLC, and Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. is requested to ensure these Projects are not in conflict. Continued 1 Coachella Valley Association of Governments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. 171
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 17
Final Environmental Impact Report
coordination will occur as requested. This comment does not assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
172
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 18
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 4 (page 1 of 4)
173
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 19
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 4 (page 2 of 4)
174
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 20
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 4 (page 3 of 4)
175
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 21
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 4 (page 4 of 4)
176
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 22
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 4
Mary Woulfe for Brian Croft, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
September 2, 2025
4-1 This comment provides a general introduction. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
4-2 This comment includes a general summary of the proposed Project and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 4-3 The commenter notes that black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura) was observed within the northern portion of the Study Area. The commenter notes that the DEIR states the blacktailed gnatcatcher is listed as a Covered Species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“CVMSHCP”); however, this species is not currently covered under the CVMSHCP.

This change has been made to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, pages 4.4-12, 4.4-24 and 4.4- 31 of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. It should be noted that the discussion regarding black-tailed gnatcatcher will remain in DEIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, p. 4.4-24 under the discussion of “Avian Species,” since potential impacts to nesting birds and common passerine species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), including black-tailed gnatcatcher, could occur if nests are located on the Project Area and/or in the immediate vicinity during construction activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (DEIR, page 4.4-30) requires the preparation of preconstruction surveys in compliance with MBTA, thereby protecting the black tailed gnatcatcher and reducing project impacts on the species to less than significant levels.

The commenter agrees that burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, CVMSHCP-Covered Species, CDFW Species of Special Concern (“SSC”], and California Endangered Species Act (“CESA” Candidate Endangered), crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale, CVMSHCP-Covered Species), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) have potential to occur within the Study Area. The commenter further states that the presence of sparse vegetation, particularly cover of shrubs, is suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds. Moreover, bare ground or sparse vegetation cover also constitutes suitable nesting habitat for some ground-nesting birds. Therefore, the proposed ground disturbance has the potential to impact nesting birds. The commenter states that the DEIR does not indicate that focused nesting bird surveys were completed, likely contributing to the lack of nesting bird observations during the field survey. The commenter recommends focused nesting bird surveys, both within and outside of nesting season, to accurately confirm nesting birds’ presence or absence. The commenter claimsthat a complete assessment of the biological resources within the Project area is required to assess the Project’s potential impacts to nesting birds, and requests that the DEIR be revised to include a complete assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to nesting bird habitat, including 177
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 23
Final Environmental Impact Report
completion of nesting bird surveys during the appropriate time of year, to determine the extent of nesting birds on the Project site.

Pages 23 and 28 of the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”) and page 4.4-24 of the DEIR state that multiple nesting birds and raptors have the potential to nest in shrubs and trees and/or burrow on bare ground throughout and near the Study Area, and that numerous avian nests including verdins (Auriparus flaviceps) nesting in the mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and arrow weed (Pluchea sericea) thickets were observed within the Substation development area. The DEIR further states that no special status birds or raptors were observed, with the exception of black-tailed gnatcatcher, but suitable open habitats, trees, shrubs, and other vegetation provide the micro-habitats for these species to occur throughout the Project area. These observations further demonstrate that the Study Area is used by nesting birds.

The DEIR also states (page 4.4-24) that vegetation and open areas within and surrounding the Project area have the potential to provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites, and favorable conditions for avian nesting that could be affected by the proposed Project. The DEIR further states (page 4.4-24) that potential impacts to nesting birds could occur if nests are located on the Project area and/or in the immediate vicinity during construction activities.

Direct impacts could occur to avian special-status species if active nests are disturbed during vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. Direct impacts may also occur if active nests are located within close proximity to the Project area and are abandoned due to visual and/or acoustic Project-related actions such as construction noise, lighting, and fugitive dust.

These impacts could lead to individual mortality and/or harassment that might reduce nesting success. Therefore, as stated in the DEIR, impacts to special-status birds and raptors would be potentially significant without mitigation.

The USFWS’s comment letter was reviewed, and further responses were provided by Rincon Consultants in the Responses to Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments for the Coachella Airport Business Park in Coachella, Riverside County, California (Biological Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum), dated November 3, 2025 (provided as Attachment C2 of this FEIR). This attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. Based on this Technical Memorandum, the assessment of potential Project impacts to nesting birds within the Study Area included in both the BRA and DEIR is adequate because no federally listed threatened or endangered birds were detected within the Study Area; and as prescribed in Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1, implementation of a pre-construction nesting bird survey prior to commencement of any vegetation removal or ground disturbance, and establishment of appropriate avoidance buffers if any active nests are detected during the survey until a qualified biologist has determined that nestlings have fledged or the nest is no longer active, are sufficient in order to avoid/minimize impacts to nesting birds.

Additionally, the commenter notes that MM BIO-1 in the DEIR states that Project-related activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season, from January 15 through August 31, 178
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 24
Final Environmental Impact Report
unless pre-construction surveys are conducted within seven days prior to ground disturbance.

USFWS generally considers peak nesting season to be February 1 through September 15. The commenter also recommends that MM BIO-1 be revised to require nesting bird surveys throughout construction, both within and outside of nesting season, to account for variation in the timing of the nesting bird season and avoid any potential adverse effects to nesting.

As noted in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, it is typically not necessary to conduct nesting bird surveys outside of the bird nesting season, as birds are not typically nesting during that time of year. Due to the location of the Project site, it is not appropriate to extend the bird breeding season date into September as USFWS suggests because nesting at and around the Project site would occur at the earlier end of the specified nesting season due to the desert heat and other extreme weather conditions. Rincon suggests keeping the start of the breeding season as January 15 because raptors are known to nest as early as January. Rincon recommends modifying and adding language to MM BIO-1 with some of CDFW’s suggested revisions to MM BIO-1, as described below in Response 14.11, in order to clarify and amplify this MM and facilitate its adequacy in protecting nesting birds. The recommended updated MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance/Pre-construction Surveys is as follows:
“Prior to issuance of the Project’s grading permit, the following measures shall be implemented:

To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status bird species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, activities related to the Project, including but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction shall not occur during the bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31) unless a pre-construction nesting bird survey is conducted within three seven days prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbance.

A qualified biologist, who is familiar with the identification of avian species in the Coachella Valley, will conduct the preconstruction nesting bird survey within three seven days prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbance to evaluate the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project Area. The extent of the survey area surrounding the Project Area shall be determined by the qualified biologist to help ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.

The qualified biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey efforts. If an active nest(s) is discovered, a suitable buffer shall be established around the active nests, as determined by the biologist, and construction activity will not occur within the buffer until the biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. Buffer size shall consider the species involved and relevant level of tolerance to adjacent activity, the location of the nest relative to proposed activities, and site conditions that naturally buffer the location, such as vegetation screening, topography, etc. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. If construction activities are delayed or paused for more than 14 days during the nesting season, the nest survey will be re-initiated for areas that still 179
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 25
Final Environmental Impact Report
contain potential nesting habitat. No parking, storage of materials, or construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into this buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist, if it is determined that encroachment will not adversely impact the nesting birds.”
This change has been made to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, page 4.4-26 (MM BIO-1) of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. 4-4 The commenter notes that the BRA states that burrowing owls or burrows were not observed during the field survey, although the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates that the species has previously been observed within five miles of the Project site. The USFWS states that due to the presence of disturbed habitat within the Project site, the proximity of the Whitewater River channel and berms, and the potential for Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrels to occur and create burrows within the Project area, the Project site is likely suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owls have the potential to inhabit the site.

The commenter notes that the DEIR does not indicate completion of focused burrowing owl surveys. The commenter recommends that the DEIR include an accurate assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owl, including results from focused surveys during the breeding season and non-breeding season following the protocols outlines in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Additionally, the commenter recommends that MM BIO-2 be revised to require burrowing owl pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist in accordance with the protocols described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The commenter also recommends that MM BIO-2 be revised to include burrowing owl surveys throughout the construction period. The commenter also recommends that MM BIO-2 be revised to require that, if the preconstruction surveys confirm burrowing owl presence, the Project applicant shall submit a Burrowing Owl Plan that includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to the USFWS and CDFW (collectively, Wildlife Agencies) for review and approval prior to beginning Project activities. The commenter notes that the Project proponent should coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The commenter further notes that per Section 4.4 and Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP, relocation of burrowing owls must follow protocols accepted by the Wildlife Agencies, and active relocation and eviction/passive relocation must be determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies for all Covered Species. The commenter further requests that MM BIO-2 be revised to state that if avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, the Project applicant shall coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on a burrowing owl relocation plan, and requests that the relocation plan be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval.

Based on the Biological Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (provided as Attachment C2 of this FEIR), Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP requires burrowing owl surveys in CVMSHCP Conservation Areas. The Projectsite is outside of a Conservation Area; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys are not required by the CVMSHCP for the Project. The biological resources field survey found no burrowing owl or their sign, and no burrows on the 180
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 26
Final Environmental Impact Report
Project site. The commenter provides no evidence that the species occupies the site. The site is not located in a CVMSHCP Conservation Area. MM BIO-2 requires pre-construction surveys for the species. If the species were to locate on the site, the required pre-construction surveys would identify them, and preclude Project activities, including grubbing prior to grading until such time as a mitigation program, including relocation if needed, was reviewed and implemented by the project biologist and CDFW, thereby eliminating the potential for Take of the species on the Project site. The City is complying with the requirements of both the CVMSHP and CESA by requiring MM BIO-2, and no change is required to assure protection of the species on the site. In order to provide clarity and direction, MM BIO-2 has been modified to explicitly cite the CDFW Staff Report as the correct protocol, and to prohibit Project activities until mitigation or avoidance measures are implemented, should the species be identified on site.

Therefore, MM BIO-2 will be revised as follows:

BIO-2 Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Survey
In accordance with Section 4.4 Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of the CVMSHCP, pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012 or most recent version). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 500 feet of the Project disturbance footprint to identify burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owl. Potentially suitable burrows shall be checked by a qualified biologist to see if they are occupied or not prior to the start of Project disturbance activities. If the burrow is unoccupied, the burrow shall be made inaccessible to burrowing owl, and the Project may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, Project activities shall be immediately halted within 500 feet of the burrow. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS and prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval prior to re-commencing Project activities within the restricted area the burrowing owl shall be relocated pursuant to accepted CDFW protocols. A burrow is assumed occupied if records indicate that at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow on site during the past three years. For grounddisturbing activities, pre-construction surveys should be repeated when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days. If there are no records for the site, surveys must be conducted to determine, prior to construction, if burrowing owl are present. Active burrows shall be avoided during the burrowing owl breeding season (January 15 to August 31) with an appropriate buffer zone as determined by a qualified biologist. If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow) in coordination with CDFW and the City.

Passive relocation may only occur in the non-breeding season (September to January).

This change has been made to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, page 4.4-26 of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. It should be noted that this change, including the identification of the burrowing owl as a candidate species, does not constitute significant 181
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 27
Final Environmental Impact Report
new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.
4-5 The commenter notes that bat species were not observed during the field survey, but agrees with the BRA’s conclusion that there is moderate potential for western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus, CVMSHCP-Covered Species) to occur on the Project site due to the presence of the California fan palm oasis north of the Project site and the riparian woodland and scrub habitats within the northern portion of the Study Area. The commenter notes that the DEIR does not indicate completion of focused bat surveys. Additionally, the commenter states that the DEIR does not include an assessment of bat roosting habitat in the bridge on Airport Boulevard, adjacent to the southern portion of the Project site and within the Study Area. The commenter recommends that the DEIR be revised to include a complete assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to bat habitat, including completion of focused bat surveys following accepted survey methods on the Project site and the Airport Boulevard bridge crossing over the Whitewater River channel.

Based on the Biological Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (provided as Attachment C2 of this FEIR), the CVMSHCP does not require focused bat surveys. MM BIO3 requires a special-status bat species emergence survey if construction activities are to occur within 300 feet of the California fan palm oasis during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31). The emergence survey will be conducted in areas of suitable roosting habitat, which includes the Airport Boulevard bridge, during the maternity season to document the presence of special-status bat species maternal roosting habitat. MM BIO-3 also requires that any special-status bat species observed during the maternity roosting season within or adjacent to the Project area should be avoided and provided a minimum buffer as determined by the qualified biologist (a 100-foot to 300-foot buffer is recommended) prior to the commencement of Project construction.

Additionally, the commenter recommends that MM BIO-3 is revised to include detailed information regarding survey methods, including the number of days of acoustic monitoring, emergence roost counts, and number of roost count observers.

The commenter also recommends that MM BIO-3 be revised to require a minimum of two surveys during the maternity season, one during spring and one during summer. Further, the commenter recommends that MM BIO-3 also be revised to require a winter survey and migration period survey, and to require that, if bats are determined to be present at the Project site, avoidance and buffers are established at all times of year, regardless of maternity roosting season.

The commenter recommends that MM BIO-3 be revised to require that, if bats are determined to be present at the Project site, avoidance and buffers are established at all times of year, regardless of maternity roosting season.

As noted in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, due to the fact that the CVMSHCP does not require focused bat surveys, a special-status bat species emergence survey is sufficient. Performance 182
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 28
Final Environmental Impact Report
standards are included in the MM as written, and further detail is not required. MM BIO-3 as written would ensure avoidance of special-status bat species during the maternity roosting season with establishment of a 100-foot to 300-foot buffer should any special-status bat species be detected. However, MM BIO-3 will be slightly revised to include the express mention of the Airport Boulevard bridge since it is included as an area of suitable roosting habitat, as follows:

BIO-3 Emergence Bat Survey
A special-status bat species emergence survey shall be conducted if construction activities are to occur within 300 feet of the California fan palm oasis during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31). The emergence survey will be conducted in areas of suitable roosting habitat, including the Airport Boulevard bridge, during the maternity season to document the presence of special-status bat species maternal roosting habitat. The emergence survey will be conducted 30 minutes before sunset and last for up to two hours after sunset. Any specialstatus bat species observed during the maternity roosting season within or adjacent to the Project Area should be avoided and provided a minimum buffer as determined by the qualified biologist (a 100-foot to 300-foot buffer is recommended) prior to the commencement of construction.
4-6 The commenter concludes by providing a contact name for any questions associated with the above comments. Comment noted.
183
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 29
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 1 of 10)
184
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 30
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 2 of 10)
185
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 31
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 3 of 10)
186
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 32
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 4 of 10)
187
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 33
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 5 of 10)
188
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 34
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 6 of 10)
189
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 35
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 7 of 10)
190
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 36
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 8 of 10)
191
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 37
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 9 of 10)
192
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 38
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 5 (page 10 of 10)
193
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 39
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 5
Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
South Coast Air Quality Management District
September 3, 2025
5-1 This comment provides a general introduction. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
5-2 This comment includes a general summary of the proposed Project and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 5-3 This comment relates to the use of EMFAC2021 instead of EMFAC2025 in the Project’s air quality analysis. The commenter recommends that the emissions calculations for the air quality analysis in the DEIR be revised utilizing the EMFAC 2025 emissions factors rather than the current EMFAC2021, since the Proposed Project’s DEIR was prepared in July 2025. As noted in Attachment B2 of this Final EIR, the EMFAC2025 model has not yet been approved by the USEPA. Approval of the EMFAC 2025 model by the USEPA is required before a new EMFAC version can be used. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the modeling, as the most current approved EMFAC model has been utilized in the DEIR. 5-4 This comment relates to the use of outdated AERMET, and meteorological data used in the AERMOD modeling in the Project’s air quality analysis. The commenter notes that Appendix B1 of the DEIR indicates that meteorological data processed by AERMET version 16216 (version 9) were used for the modeling. However, SCAQMD released a newer, approved version of AERMOD-ready MET data files (Version 11) in October 2023. The commenter further states that the use of outdated meteorological data and model versions is inconsistent with the U.S. EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W) and may result in inaccurate or non-conservative health risk estimates. To ensure accuracy and consistency with federal modeling guidelines, the commenter requests that the air quality modeling be re-run using the more recent meteorological data processed by the most recent USEPA-recommended versions of AERMET (version 24142), revise the health risk results accordingly, and include the updated results in the Final EIR.

As discussed in the Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the AERMOD model runs were re-run with the following changes: 1) the most current versions of AERMOD, AERMET, AERMINUTE and AERSURFACE were utilized; 2) the averaging times of 1 hour and Period were selected; 3) the most current meteorological data for Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport was utilized; and 4) for the operational model runs, the proposed buildings’ heights were entered into AERMOD and pre-processed with BPIP. The revised AERMOD model run results and associated cancer risks are provided for informational purposes in Attachment B2 of this Final EIR.

As shown in Attachment B2, the cancer risk from the proposed Project’s DPM emissions would be as high as 1.6 per million persons at the mobile homes located south of the Project site 194
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 40
Final Environmental Impact Report
(Sensitive Receptors 2 and 3). When combined with the gas station TAC emissions, this would result in a cancer risk as high as 3.0 per million persons at the mobile homes located south of the Project site. The combined Project-related cancer risk from DPM and gas station TAC emissions would remain well below the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 per million persons based on the updated analysis. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from TAC emissions. This change has been made to page 4.3-28 of the DEIR (Table 4.3-9, Project-Related Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Cancer Risks at Nearby Sensitive Receptors) and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. As shown in the Table, all of the cancer risk impacts calculated with the current information are lower than those originally included in the DEIR. Therefore, the DEIR identified a more conservative cancer risk assessment, and these recalculations do not warrant recirculation of the DEIR.
5-5 This comment remarked on pollutant averaging time utilized in the Project’s air quality analysis. The commenter’s review of the dispersion modeling files noted that the PM2.5 pollutant type and averaging time of 24-Hour and annual keywords were selected for the pollutant averaging time in the control pathway in the AERMOD model, however, a detailed HRA utilizing AERMOD should be run using the “OTHER” type and pollutant averaging time 1- hour and PERIOD. In addition, the commenter’s review of the modeling files noted that industrial buildings were not included in the building downwash option in the AERMOD dispersion model during operation which resulted in an underestimation of the ground-level pollutant concentrations near the buildings. As such, the commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR be revised accordingly.

Refer to Response 5-4, above. The 1-hour and Period averaging times and the building downwash were analyzed in the revised AERMOD model runs, provided in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, which did not change the analysis or conclusions set forth in the DEIR and does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR. 5-6 This comment relates to the HRA analysis for Project operation in the Project’s air quality analysis. The commenter notes that the Project’s air quality analysis indicates that the operational risks from the proposed gas station were prepared using the SCAQMD’s Risk Tool (V1.103). However, this tool is only applicable to CEQA permitting projects and is not applicable to Proposed Project. As such, the commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR be revised to conduct an operational phase HRA, which should include evaluating truck emissions (including the truck routes to and from the site, truck loading/unloading docks, and their proximity to the sensitive receptors) and the impact of diesel-powered stationary and portable sources under the foreseeable probable future conditions. The commenter adds that the air quality analysis and DEIR should also disclose the potential health risks for chronic and acute impacts of the Proposed Project’s operation on residents living and/or workers working outside the Proposed Project’s boundary.

As discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the cancer and non-cancer risks from diesel emissions created from construction and operation of the proposed Project were analyzed using AERMOD. Specifically, Section 8.3 of Appendix B1 of the DEIR describes the modeling inputs and Section 10.4 of Appendix B1 of the DEIR shows the modeling results. The RiskTool 195
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 41
Final Environmental Impact Report
has been utilized in hundreds of CEQA documents and is a published analysis method that is utilized for gas stations and other site-specific sources. Section 10.4 of Appendix B1 of the DEIR utilized a very conservative method of adding the cancer risk calculated by AERMOD to the cancer risk calculated by the RiskTool, in order to provide the total cancer risk from the proposed Project at the nearby sensitive receptors. Pages 4.3-26 to 4.3-29 of the DEIR summarize these calculations and clearly show the results of the analysis. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
5-7 This comment relates to the hauling mileage information during construction in the Project’s air quality analysis. The commenter states that, according to the DEIR, the Proposed Project site would be serviced by the Badlands Landfill and Burrtec landfill facilities which are located 69 miles and 31 miles from the Project site, respectively. However, the haul truck length trip in CalEEMod analysis shows 20 miles. Thus, the air quality analysis during construction is potentially underestimated in the DEIR.

As discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the import of 21,040 cubic yards of dirt to the Project site during the grading phase was analyzed in CalEEMod. Landfills are not a source of fill dirt for construction projects in the Coachella Valley. It should be noted that there are typically several construction projects with excess dirt and only a few projects that need dirt, so it can be reasonably assumed that the imported dirt will come from a nearby project that is located closer than 20 miles away. As such, the 20-mile assumption for trip length in CalEEMod is considered conservative. Accordingly, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
5-8 The commenter asserts that the localized significance threshold (LST) analysis in the Project’s air quality analysis appears to incorrectly rely on the LST screening tables to determine the significance of localized air quality impacts. As indicated in Table 3-2 of the LST methodology, these screening tables are not applicable for projects larger than five acres. Since the Proposed Project site size is 47.96 acres reliance on the LST screening tables may underestimate localized air quality impacts. Therefore, the commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR be revised to conduct project-specific dispersion modeling and compare the results to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants on the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

As discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the SCAQMD provides a Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold that details how to analyze the projects that are greater than 5 acres in size by using calculations based on the active construction equipment.

The Draft EIR utilized the methodology provided in the Fact Sheet to analyze the localized air impacts from construction and operation of the proposed Project.

However, in order to expand on localized air impacts during construction and operations, the AERMOD PM2.5 DPM construction run that is detailed in Section 8.3 Appendix B1 of the DEIR, and summarized in Table 4.3-10, Project-Related Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Cancer Risks at Nearby Sensitive Receptors, of the DEIR, was re-run based on the site preparation phase of construction, and is provided in Attachment B2 of this FEIR. The off-road equipment source was set to match the 4.17 pounds per day of PM2.5 emissions as calculated from CalEEMod. 196
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 42
Final Environmental Impact Report
The AERMOD model run files are provided in Attachment B2 of this Final EIR, which found that site preparation activities would create PM2.5 concentrations as high as 0.192 μg/m3, which is well below SCAQMD’s PM2.5 construction threshold of 10.4 μg/m3.

For operations, the AERMOD model was based on the year 2028 PM2.5 emissions rates from the EMFAC2021 model output files provided in Appendix B of the Air Report and included emissions from exhaust (RUNEX), brake wear (PMBW) and tire wear (PMTW). The AERMOD model run files are provided in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, which found that operational activities would create PM2.5 concentrations as high as 0.024 µg/m3 , which is well below
SCAQMD’s PM2.5 operational threshold of 2.5 µg/m3
.

This information expands upon the information provided in the DEIR but does not represent a change in the analysis or the level of impact significance as discussed in the DEIR. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 5-9 This comment relates to a potential underestimation of emissions in the Project’s air quality analysis due to assumptions for truck trip lengths and trip rates in the emissions analysis. The commenter notes that the Project’s air quality analysis explains that the analysis was based on the assumption that the average truck trip length is 20 miles. However, the Project site is located approximately 150 miles away from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach which means that the air quality analysis underestimated the emissions from trucks traveling from the Ports to the Projectsite. As such, the commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR be revised using project-specific assumptions for vehicle trip lengths and rates, including applying more conservative trip lengths such as designating specific mileage distance for local trips and 150 miles for Port-related trips.

As discussed in the Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the distance utilized the default trip distances that ranged between 4.79 and 9.65 miles in the CalEEMod model. The trip distances in the CalEEMod model vary for each region of the State and are based on empirical evidence provided in the CalEEMod User Guide and the use of the default trip distances in CalEEMod meets the CEQA requirement of providing substantial evidence of the analysis. The largest proposed warehouse under the Project would be 48,800 square feet, which would be considered a small warehouse in Southern California, and no warehouses would be designed to be high-cube warehouses, which are the warehouses specifically designed to receive cargo containers. For these reasons, truck trips directly from the Ports to the Project site are not anticipated and the default truck trip distancesin the CalEEMod provide a reasonable estimate of the truck trip distances that would occur during operation of the proposed Project. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 5-10 The commenter notes that, based on the review of an aerial photograph and the DEIR, the Proposed Project site is located adjacent to a railroad. The Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR should explain whether transportation by railroad will be utilized for this Project.

No railroad connections or loading areas will be provided on the Project site as part of the proposed Project. This is further discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
197
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 43
Final Environmental Impact Report
5-11 The commenter notes that the Proposed Project area includes the AB 617 designated Eastern Coachella Valley (“ECV”) community that is heavily impacted by air pollution. As part of the AB 617 process, SCAQMD is required to work with a Community Steering Committee (“CSC”) to develop a Community Emission Reductions Plan (“CERP”) that identifies air quality priorities and related actions to address those air quality priorities and reduce air pollution in the community. The commenter recommends that the Lead Agency review the actions to reduce air pollution in the ECV community included in Chapter 5 of the ECV CERP. SCAQMD staff also recommends the Lead Agency continue working with SCAQMD to explore whether additional measures to further reduce emissions can be identified and implemented at the Proposed Project to support actions in the ECV CERP.

As part of the environmental analysis in the DEIR, air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, South Coast AQMD significance thresholds, and applicable regulatory requirements. The CERP for the ECV community, adopted by the South Coast AQMD Governing Board on June 4, 2021, was reviewed for consistency with the proposed project.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would comply with all applicable AB 617 requirements for the Eastern Coachella Valley community, as well as all applicable South Coast AQMD rules and regulations (Refer to DEIR page 4.3-11). The proposed project incorporates mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure GHG-1) designed to minimize emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants during construction and operation, as described on pages 4.3-23 of the DEIR. These measures are consistent with the air quality improvement strategies identified in the ECV CERP and would not conflict with or impede implementation of the CERP.

As demonstrated in the Project’s air quality analysis and Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the proposed project’s emissions would not result in significant air quality impacts after implementation of required mitigation measures and would not contribute substantially to existing air quality burdens within the ECV community. Coordination with South Coast AQMD would continue, as required, to ensure compliance with applicable air quality regulations. This comment does not identify new information that would alter the conclusions of the air quality analysis, and no additional mitigation measures are required. 5-12 The commenter recommends that additional air quality mitigation measures for NOx and PM emissions from Project construction be included in the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR.

Specifically, the commenter notes that, according to the CARB Strategies for Reducing Emissions from Off-Road Construction Equipment, the implementation of off-road Tier 5 starting in 2027 or 2028 and the Governor’s EO in September 2020 requires CARB to develop and propose a full transition to Zero Emissions (“ZE”) by 2035. Further, the commenter adds that several other resources to assist the Lead Agency with identifying additional potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project are included in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook for both operational and construction emissions.

As shown in DEIR Table 4.3-5, the Project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx and PM emissions during construction. The Project therefore complies with SCAQMD thresholds 198
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 44
Final Environmental Impact Report
under CEQA. The Project Applicant has committed to implementing Mitigation Measure GHG1 (DEIR page 4.3-22 and 4.3-23) that restricts the use of diesel-powered off-road equipment during operation of the proposed Project and requires temporary power poles to be installed during construction of the proposed Project that will allow for the charging of the ZE vehicles.

As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 5-13 This comment relates to Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (“WAIRE”) Program. The commenter notes that, since the Proposed Project consists of the development of a total of 329,100 square feet of warehouses, the Proposed Project’s warehouse owners and operators will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, the commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR review SCAQMD Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future operators and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation.

As described in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the Project will be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. As allowed under CEQA, compliance with standard requirements and responsible agency regulations is sufficient to reduce impacts, and is not required as mitigation for projects. However, it should be noted that the largest warehouse space on the proposed plans is 48,800 square feet. Therefore, unless a tenant were to take leases on multiple warehouse spaces, this Rule will likely not apply to the proposed Project. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 5-14 The commenter recommends incorporating several air quality mitigation measures and project design considerations into the Final EIR. The commenter further suggests that the Lead Agency conduct a review of a number of publications from SCAQMD, the State of California, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

As discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, and as shown in the DEIR, Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6, the proposed Project has provided adequate mitigation to reduce all air quality-related impacts to less than significant levels. It should be noted that most of the commenter’s proposed mitigation has already or will likely become State Regulations that the Project Applicant will be required to implement. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
5-15 This comment relates to SCAQMD air permits and role as a Responsible Agency. The commenter recommends that the Project’s air quality analysis and DEIR should be revised to include a discussion about any and all new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD air permits (including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, etc.), provide the evaluation of their air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project as this information will be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). 199
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 45
Final Environmental Impact Report
As discussed in the Attachment B2 of this FEIR, all of the regulations noted by the commenter have all been discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR, as part of the SCAQMD subsection of Section 4.3.2, Regulatory Framework. In addition, DEIR Section 4.3.4, Impact Analysis (under “Methodology”), includes a discussion regarding the CalEEMod assumptions used for modeling, based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix using the building types, sizes and uses proposed for the Project. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
5-16 The commenter concludes by iterating the DEIR comment and response processes set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a-b).

This comment is noted.
200
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 46
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 6 (page 1 of 5)
201
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 47
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 6 (page 2 of 5)
202
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 48
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 6 (page 3 of 5)
203
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 49
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 6 (page 4 of 5)
204
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 50
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 6 (page 5 of 5)
205
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 51
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 6
Gary Wayne Resvaloso Jr.

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
July 21, 2025
6-1 This comment provides a general introduction. Responses to specific comments are provided below.
6-2 The commenter describes the three identified areas of Tribal concern in relation to the Project site. The commenter further states that the Tribe has previously discovered deep intact archaeological features related to the Tribe’s mortuary practices underneath these deep plow zones.

A general acknowledgment of the three areas of concern (village sites) described by the commenter is provided in DEIR Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, and the Cultural Resource Investigation that was prepared for the Project. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis under CEQA. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
6-3 The commenter reiterates the concern regarding potential subsurface cultural content and requests that Phase 1 extension (Phase 2 Testing) be conducted. The commenter further states that the Tribe requires the preparation of a Phase 3 Data Recovery Plan (Monitoring Plan/Tribal Monitoring).

For context, it should be noted that the initial tribal outreach letters were sent to 12 recommended tribal groups based on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 3, 2020, which included the Torrez Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. A follow-up phone call was also placed to the Tribe on April 30, 2020. Five responses were received from the list of tribal groups from the NAHC in 2020. The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation and Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians stated the tribes do not have any comments for the Project. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians stated that the Project area is within their Traditional Use Area and made some requests for information as well as monitoring during ground disturbance. The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians deferred to the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians responded on April 28, 2020, and indicated that the area is sensitive for cultural resources and, as such, they stated they would provide information regarding the sensitivity of the area during the official AB 52 consultation process. Tribal consultation with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians was conducted from April 12, 2022, through July 12th, 2022. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians did not respond. In response to the commenter’s email of July 21, 2025, the City indicated that consultation had been completed, but the City provided the commenter a copy of the Cultural Resource Investigation (Appendix D1 of the DEIR) and indicated that City staff was available if the commenter wished to have further discussions. No response was received.
206
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 52
Final Environmental Impact Report
A Cultural Resources Memorandum in support of the Final EIR Coachella Airport Business Park Project, Riverside, California (Cultural Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum), was prepared by Chronicle Heritage dated October 2, 2025 (provided as Attachment D2 of this FEIR). It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. As noted in Attachment D2 of this FEIR, the previously-conducted 2023 records search, intensive Phase 1 survey, and consultation of the 2021 Archaeological Sensitivity Model all found no documented or visible surface cultural resources in the Project area. The sensitivity model concluded that the potential for surface resources remains low. Additionally, the intensive archaeological survey noted the Project area is relatively disturbed and is located within an active alluvial plain. Therefore, the likelihood of identifying archaeological resources in original context is considered low. As such, further cultural resource management, including Phase 2 testing, is not warranted for the Project, as surficial resource potential has been thoroughly evaluated. In addition, MM CUL-1 already provides for the establishment of all necessary protocols and procedures for the treatment of resources prior to the initiation of earth moving activities. As such, a formal Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan is not recommended.

The DEIR correctly identified the potential presence of buried resources. In order to assure that impacts to these resources would be less than significant, the DEIR includes MM CUL-1, which requires a qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor(s) to be present during any ground disturbing activities during the Project construction phase and requires that all work shall be halted in the vicinity in the event of a discovery during the Project’s ground disturbing activities in the construction phase. However, to clarify, the language pertaining to tribal monitoring during Project construction in MM CUL-1 has been slightly revised to include a reference specifically to the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, as well as the ABCBI per Comment Letter 7, below. This change has been made to both Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, pages 4.5-9 and 4.5-10, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, page 4.18-7, of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. It should be noted that this revision does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. 6-4 The commenter concludes by providing a contact name for any questions associated with the above comments. Comment noted.
207
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 53
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 7 (1 of 3)
208
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 54
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 7 (2 of 3)
209
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 55
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 7 (3 of 3)
210
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 56
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 7
Xitlaly Madrigal
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
July 23, 2025
7-1 The commenter requests that the language for Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in DEIR Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, on p. 4.18-7, to revised to specify that an Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Tribal Monitor be present during any ground disturbing activities during the Project construction phase.

Refer to Response 6-3, above. The language pertaining to tribal monitoring during Project construction in MM CUL-1 has been slightly revised to include a reference specifically to the ACBCI, as well as the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, per Comment Letter 6, above.

This change is reflected in both Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, (page 4.5-10) and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, (page 4.18-7) of the DEIR and in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR.

It should be noted that this revision does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies.

211
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 57
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 8 (page 1 of 5)
212
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 58
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 8 (page 2 of 5)
213
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 59
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 8 (page 3 of 5)
214
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 60
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 8 (page 4 of 5)
215
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 61
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 8 (page 5 of 5)
216
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 62
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 8
Josh Rubal, Lead Planning Associate
Distribution Planning & Project Management
Redlands HQ - Southeast Region
Southern California Gas Company
July 23, 2025
8-1 The commenter states that SoCalGas does not have a conflict with the Project and provides contact information for the Project developer for pre-construction utility coordination.

Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. 8-2 This comment provides contact information for the various SoCalGas regions. Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
8-3 This comment provides notification timelines for various project types including minor and major street improvement projects and pipeline projects. The Project Applicant is coordinating with all utility purveyors including SoCalGas within the required timeframes.

Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. 8-4 This comment states that potholing may be required to determine if a conflict exists between the proposed Project and SoCalGas facilities and provides instructions for sending a request in writing. The Project Applicant is coordinating with all utility purveyors including SoCalGas and will advise SoCalGas if potholing is required. Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
217
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 63
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 9 (page 1 of 3)
218
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 64
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 9 (page 2 of 3)
219
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 65
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 9 (page 3 of 3)
220
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 66
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 9
Sheila M. Sannadan, Legal Assistant
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
9-1 This comment requests copies of all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the DEIR.

CEQA requires that the public notice specify the address where copies of the draft EIR and all documents referenced in the draft EIR are available for review. (PRC § 21092(b)(1)). CEQA also requires that the lead agency must post the draft EIR on its internet website, if any. (PRC § 21082.1(d)). Although CEQA requires that notice must be given in sufficient time so that the public is able to use the full review period, courts apply the principle that “statutory requirements for public notice are fulfilled if the public agency makes a good faith effort to follow the procedures prescribed by law” when reviewing a lead agency’s compliance with the notice requirements of PRC § 21092. (Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 922-924). CEQA does not require the draft EIR to be provided in a manner beyond what is required by law, and courts shall not interpret the CEQA statutes or the state guidelines in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated in the statutes or state guidelines. (PRC § 21083.1).

On August 11, 2025, the City made a good faith effort to provide the reference documents requested by CARE CA in its August 6, 2025, letter. Of note, CEQA does not require that functional hyperlinks or physical copies of requested documents must be provided in response to public requests or as part of the statutory public comment process. Instead, CEQA requires that the notice must provide the address where documents referenced in the draft EIR are available for review. (PRC § 21092(b)(1)). In accordance with Gilroy, these efforts by the City, and its CEQA consultant, plainly constitute a good faith effort to follow statutory requirements for public notice and Draft EIR availability. Although the City allowed comments to be submitted until September 11, 2025, this was only an extension for filing comments, not an extension of the legally required public review period.

CEQA does not require recirculation of the EIR where new information merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (PRC § 21092.1, Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112.). Fulfilling the request to provide reference information for the documents requested by CARE CA in its August 6, 2025 letter amplifies the information already contained in an adequate EIR; therefore, recirculation is not required. Furthermore, this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
221
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 67
Final Environmental Impact Report
9-2 This comment summarizes the project description. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 9-3 See Response 9-1.
222
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 68
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 10 (page 1 of 2)
223
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 69
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 10 (page 2 of 2)
224
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 70
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 10
Sheila M. Sannadan, Legal Assistant
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
10-1 CEQA requires the lead agency to provide public notice of the availability of the draft EIR at the same time [the lead agency] sends a notice of completion to the OPR. This comment requests mailed notice of the availability of any environmental review document prepared under CEQA for the proposed Project. The commenter has been added to the City’s list of interested parties and has been, and will continue to be provided Project notices. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
10-2 This comment summarizes the project description. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 10-3 See Response 10-1.
225
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 71
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 11 (page 2 of 3)
226
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 72
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 11 (page 3 of 3)
227
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 73
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 11 (page 1 of 3)
228
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 74
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 11
Sheila M. Sannadan, Legal Assistant
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
August 6, 2025
11-1 This comment consists of a Public Records Act (PRA) request for any and all Project-related public records including but not limited to file materials, applications, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, email messages, files, maps, charts, and any other files related to the Project. The City Clerk responded to the commenter, and provided all responsive records. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
11-2 This comment summarizes the project description. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 11-3 This comment cites provisions relative to the California PRA, under which this request has been made. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.
11-4 This comment states that direct duplication costs will be paid by the commenter upon request and provides contact information. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 229
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 75
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 12 (page 1 of 1)
230
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 76
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 12
Brian Flynn
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility via Lozeau Drury, LLP August 6, 2025
12-1 This comment provides a general introduction and includes a general summary of the proposed Project. Responses to specific comments are provided below. 12-2 The commenter expresses concern that the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts. The commenter requests that the City recirculate the Draft EIR. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact or the need to recirculate the Draft EIR. As discussed in Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 862, a general response to a general comment is sufficient.

The Draft EIR provides an accurate and thorough analysis of all of the project’s potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, mitigation measures would be required for impacts related to Aesthetics, Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology, Greenhouse Gases, and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation as these impact areas are potentially significant after the imposition of existing regulations and standard conditions. For other impact areas, the Draft EIR details that there is no nexus requiring mitigation pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(A)-(B), as impacts would be less than significant. No conditions exist that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and the Draft EIR is not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature. .
12-3 The commenter concludes that they reserve the right to supplement these comments.

Comment noted.
231
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 77
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 1 of 9)
232
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 78
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 2 of 9)
233
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 79
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 3 of 9)
234
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 80
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 4 of 9)
235
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 81
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 5 of 9)
236
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 82
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 6 of 9)
237
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 83
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 7 of 9)
238
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 84
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 8 of 9)
239
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 85
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 13 (page 9 of 9)
240
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 86
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 13
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director
Advocates for the Environment
September 3, 2025
13-1 This comment provides a general introduction and includes a general summary of the proposed Project. Responses to specific comments are provided below. 13-2 The commenter opines that the City should require the Project to be net zero. The commenter’s opinion is noted. This comment does not raise a significant environmental concern regarding the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts; instead, it suggests that the City should adopt a different GHG significance threshold for the Project.

CEQA allows the lead agency to use its informed judgment in determining the standards of significance on which to rely. (See East Oakland Stadium Alliance v City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226, 1258). Section 4.8 of the DEIR addresses GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA requirements (see 14 CCR 15064.4). CEQA does not require the City to adopt net-zero as a significance threshold for GHG emissions. Instead, a lead agency may determine that a project has a less than significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions if the project complies with the requirements of a previously approved plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. (14 CCR 15064(h)(3)). The applicable emissions reduction plan for the Project is the Coachella Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) that was developed to be utilized as a tiering document for the streamlined review of project-level GHG emissions under CEQA for development projects in the City. As noted on page ES-14 of the DEIR it is determined, by a showing of substantial evidence, that the Project is consistent with the CAP with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 incorporated. The City included the CAP in the Coachella General Plan Update 2035 Project. The City Council approved the General Plan Update 2035 document along with the Program EIR and the CAP on April 22, 2015. The CAP builds on the 2013 General Plan Update by quantifying emissions from buildout of the City of Coachella General Plan and includes additional policies and implementation actions to help the City further reduce emissions. The CAP establishes emissions reduction targets to meet the statewide emissions targets provided in Executive Order S-03-5 that require GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 and reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CAP was developed to be utilized as a tiering document for the streamlined review of project-level GHG emissions under CEQA for development projects within the City. The CAP meets CEQA requirements for qualified GHG emissions reduction plans under 14 CCR 15183.5(b).2 The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), adopted by the California Air Resources Board on November 16, 2022, does not require local agencies to adopt net-zero GHG significance thresholds. Instead, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. (2022 Scoping Plan, p. 1). The Scoping Plan encourages local jurisdictions to develop a CAP to plan 2 City of Coachella - Planning Division, Climate Action Plan § (2015), pages 68-70. https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/1/2/12129446/climate_action_plan.pdf. 241
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 87
Final Environmental Impact Report
for the reduction of GHG emissions and allow individual projects to streamline project-specific GHG analysis. (2022 Scoping Plan p. 268).

The commenter quotes language from the Transportation Sustainability section of the 2022 Scoping Plan to suggest that the 2022 Scoping Plan reaffirms a necessity for a local agency to adopt a net-zero GHG significance threshold. However, the quoted language actually refers to the transition from fossil fuels to zero-emission vehicle technologies within the transportation sector: “While CARB’s programs, along with local action, have made substantial progress over the past few decades, it is clear that California must transition away from fossil fuels to zeroemission technologies with all possible speed and pursue policies that result in less driving, in order to meet our GHG and air quality targets . . . Technology refers to the vehicles themselves, as well as the associated refueling infrastructure for those vehicles.” (2022 Scoping Plan, p. 184). Of note, the DEIR addresses the transition away from fossil fuel vehicle technologies in Mitigation Measure GHG-1: “To the maximum extent feasible, all off-road equipment (nonstreet legal), such as forklifts and street sweepers, used onsite for warehouse operations shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane or compressed natural gas (CNG)) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emissions.” (DEIR p. 4.8-20).

Finally, the commenter states that Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan further encourages a net-zero threshold. Appendix D is not a regulatory requirement; instead, it provides recommendations intended to help local governments develop local GHG reduction strategies through the development of CAPs. (2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, p. 4). Regarding the adoption of a net-zero threshold of significance, Appendix D states: “Absent consistency with an adequate, geographically specific GHG reduction plan . . . lead agencies can make a significance determination . . . based on whether the project would result in net-zero GHG emissions. (Note that lead agencies can also use other valid significance thresholds, as described in subsection 3.2.3 below.) Although achieving net-zero GHG emissions may be an appropriate overall objective, it should be noted this approach may not be feasible or appropriate for every project.” (2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, p. 24).

In addition, as noted in the DEIR Project description (Section 2, pages 2.0-3 through 2.0-5) and in Attachment B2 (AQ/GHG/HRA Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum) of this FEIR, the proposed Project consists of a business park with a mixture of commercial and industrial uses. The commenter references net zero communities that are primarily residential communities, where Title 24 regulations require that new homes built in California are net zero through the installation of solar systems on each home. When developing the Title 24 regulations, the State recognized the importance of commercial and industrial projects to the State economy, as well as the ability of commercial uses to provide local services to the community, and Title 24 provides different standards for non-residential buildings, which allow for these buildings to consume more energy, which cannot currently be met with onsite solar PV systems. However, it should be noted that the Project Applicant has committed to implementing Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires a minimum of 50% of the total Project electrical consumption to be provided from onsite renewable sources. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 242
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 88
Final Environmental Impact Report
13-3 This comment relates to the sufficiency of the GHG analysis conducted for the proposed Project, stating that the DEIR ignored the fact that the Project before mitigation would conflict with the CAP on the whole and failed to clearly determine and analyze the potential significance of the Project’s GHG impact before mitigation. The commenter explains that the DEIR did not reference the CAP’s reduction target of 49% below 2010 GHG emissions levels per service population by 2035 or demonstrate how the Project would be consistent with this goal. While the DEIR identifies certain measures and project features intended to reduce emissions, the commenter asserts that it does not explain how these measures will be achieved, enforced, or measured to reach the CAP target reduction and that it did not demonstrate that the mitigation measure requiring such consistency, MM GHG-1, would achieve compliance with the CAP.

CEQA allows a lead agency to streamline GHG analysis for projects that are consistent with a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan. (14 CCR 15183.5(a)). The City’s CAP, adopted on April 22, 2015, meets CEQA requirements for qualified GHG emissions reduction plans under 14 CCR 15183.5(b).3 A lead agency may determine that a project has a less than significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions if the project complies with the requirements of a previously approved plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. (14 CCR 15064(h)(3)).

According to CEQA, an environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify the requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. (14 CCR 15183.5(b)(2)). Under the streamlined analysis approach, the relevant question is not whether a project’s unmitigated GHG emissions would be significant, but whether the project is consistent with the CAP’s GHG reduction strategy after applying CAP requirements. In other words, the CAP itself is the analytical basis for determining significance. The DEIR correctly identifies the CAP requirements applicable to the Project and evaluates the Project’s GHG impacts by determining its consistency with those CAP requirements in DEIR Table 4.8-4.

Regarding CAP emission reduction targets, the DEIR references the CAP’s emissions reduction target on p. 4.8-8, stating: “The CAP establishes emissions reduction targets in order to meet the statewide emissions targets provided in Executive Order S-03-5 that require GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 and reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” The CAP states that the 2035 emissions target is “Extrapolated based on a linear projection from 2020 target (15% below 2010 levels) to 2050 target (80% below 1990 levels).” (Coachella CAP, footnote 44). Therefore, the DEIR’s acknowledgement of the 2050 target accounts for the interim 2035 GHG emissions target.

Regarding consistency with CAP emission reduction goals, a project is consistent with a plan’s GHG emissions reduction targets if the project complies with all requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project. (14 CCR 15183.5(b)). DEIR Table 4.8-4, Project Consistency with the City of Coachella CAP Development Review Checklist, identifies the CAP requirements applicable to the Project and demonstrates how the Project will be consistent with each 3 City of Coachella - Planning Division, Climate Action Plan § (2015), pages 68-70. https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/1/2/12129446/climate_action_plan.pdf. 243
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 89
Final Environmental Impact Report
identified requirement. Therefore, because the DEIR demonstrates compliance with applicable CAP requirements, the lead agency has determined that the Project is consistent with the CAP’s GHG emissions reduction targets.

In regard to the commenter’s concerns related to the GHG Mitigation Measures, CEQA specifies that formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time. (14 CCR 15126.4(a)(1)(B)). The DEIR specifies that the Project will adopt Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to ensure compliance with the CAP’s Construction Emissions Reduction requirements.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1 identifies that the Project would, to the maximum extent feasible, utilize alternative fuels, electric batteries, or other alternatives / non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane or compressed natural gas (CNG)) that do not emit diesel particulate matter; the Mitigation Measure also requires that a maximum of 50 percent of the total Project electrical consumption be provided by onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other onsite renewable sources. Through adoption of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the City is ensuring compliance with the City’s CAP and current best practices in construction operations that will realize a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions. (DEIR p. 4.8-13). Mitigation Measure GHG-1 specifies detailed measures the Project will implement to achieve compliance with the CAP GHG emissions reduction requirements. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 addresses enforceability by stating that the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the mitigation measures prior to the issuance of Building Permits. (DEIR p. 4.8-20). Therefore, mitigation is not vague, deferred, or unenforceable.

As to the commenter’s assertion that the DEIR provides no project-specific evidence of quantitative analysis to demonstrate how Project GHG emissions will be less than significant, the CEQA guidelines specify that a lead agency shall have the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to quantify GHG emissions or rely on a qualitative analysis, such as a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). CEQA also specifies that a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with a qualified plan or mitigation program. (14 CCR 15183.5(b)). Section 4.8 of the DEIR provides substantial quantitative evidence of the Project’s compliance with applicable CAP requirements. (DEIR p.

4.8-11). Specifically, Table 4.8-3 addresses Project-related GHG annual emissions and Table

4.8-4 details the measures that the Project will implement to demonstrate consistency with CAP GHG emissions reduction requirements. (DEIR p. 4.8-12 – 4.8-13).

In relation to the commenter’s assertion that the DEIR does not demonstrate compliance with the CAP, the DEIR establishes mitigation measures that demonstrate compliance with CAP GHG emission reduction requirements. Regarding construction emissions, the CAP requires the Applicant to “prepare a construction emissions reduction plan that demonstrates the utilization of current best practices in construction operations that will realize a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions.” (CAP p. A-11). To satisfy this requirement, the DEIR implements Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which includes many of the best practices recommended in the CAP, including alternative fuel and electric power requirements for construction equipment and transportation management strategies for construction workers. (DEIR p. 4.8-20). The DEIR concludes that the mitigation measures implemented would reduce fossil fuel 244
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 90
Final Environmental Impact Report
consumption requirements, leading to a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions of at least 10%. (DEIR p. 4.8-13).

In addition, as discussed in the Attachment B2 of the FEIR and the GHG analysis in Section

10.8 of Appendix B1, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Health Risk Assessment, the Draft EIR was prepared pursuant to the City’s CAP and clearly states that the proposed Project’s GHG emissions were quantified for informational purposes only and determination of significance has been based on a determination of whether the Project has implemented all applicable development standards presented in the CAP Development Review Checklist. It should be noted that the CAP provides four compliance paths that either include implementation of all applicable development standards provided in the CAP Development Review Checklist or meet the City’s performance targets. Therefore, meeting the City’s performance targets that are set for new residential projects, is not applicable to the proposed Project. As such, no changes regarding this comment have been made to the Project’s AQ/GHG/HRA Report or the DEIR.
13-4 The commenter opines that the CAP is not a qualified streamlining instrument under CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b)(1). The commenter cites and summarizes Section 15183.5(b)(1)(A), Section 15183.5(b)(1)(B), and Section 15183.5(b)(1)(D) and states that, since in their opinion the Coachella CAP does not meet the criteria in the CEQA Guidelines requirement to allow it to be a document from which the City can streamline a project’s analysis, that it is erroneous to streamline under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) because the CAP is not a qualified reduction plan under the CEQA Guidelines.

The commenter’s assertion that the CAP is not a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions is not supported by substantial evidence or legal authorities. As the City specifically developed the CAP to be consistent with the criteria set forth in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1). The commenter states that CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) “requires” that a qualifying plan “must” meet the criteria listed in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1). This is not accurate, as the CEQA Guidelines state that a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions “should” meet the listed criteria. (14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)). Therefore, CEQA allows some flexibility regarding the extent to which public agencies implement plan requirements.

The commenter’s first assertion, that the CAP is not a qualifying plan because the CAP relies on a 2010 GHG inventory and thus does not adequately quantify GHG emissions as stated in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(A), is not supported by substantial evidence. The CAP states that 2010 was utilized as the baseline year because it was the year of the most reasonably complete data set available for the analysis. (CAP p. 21, footnote 37). The CAP also states that the City experienced very little growth between 2010 and 2013 and the inventory data utilized in the CAP is a proximate estimate of 2013 activity data. (Id.). Therefore, the CAP utilizes a GHG inventory estimated to be accurate as of the year before the CAP was drafted. As to the commenter’s note that the inventory was 15 years outdated when being relied upon for decision making for the Project, 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1) does not require that a CAP be approved or updated within a certain period of time prior to project review. Section 3 of the CAP quantifies GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area, in accordance with 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(A). 245
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 91
Final Environmental Impact Report
(see CAP p. 27: the CAP quantifies community GHG emissions for 2005, 2010, 2020, and 2035).

Therefore, the CAP satisfies the criteria in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(A).

The commenter’s second assertion that CAP is insufficient under 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(B) because the CAP does not connect emissions reduction targets to an established GHG level for when a project’s impacts become cumulatively considerable, is not supported by substantial evidence or legal authorities. CEQA does not require an EIR evaluation under 14 CCR 15183.5(b) streamlining provisions to connect project-specific GHG emissions to CAP emissions reduction targets. 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(B) specifies that the emission reduction plan should establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. The commenter correctly notes that the CAP sets GHG emission reductions targets for 2020 and 2035. (CAP p. 28-29). In accordance with 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(B), these are the levels below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the CAP would not be cumulatively considerable. CEQA does not require projects evaluated under 14 CCR 15183.5(b) to “connect” project-specific GHG emissions to CAP targets. Instead, a determination that a project is compliant with the applicable CAP requirements, as specified in the Climate Ready Development Review Checklist, is sufficient to satisfy the project’s cumulative impact analysis. (See 14 CCR 15183.5(b) and CAP p. 70). The California Supreme Court has supported this methodology: “evaluating the significance of a residential or mixeduse project's greenhouse gas emissions by their effect on the state's efforts to meet it longterm goals makes at least as much sense as measuring them against an absolute numerical threshold." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2016) 62 Cal.4th 204, 220-221).

The commenter’s assertion that the CAP does not meet the criteria specified in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(B) because the CAP’s GHG emissions reduction targets “are not compliant with SB 32 or aligned with any of the more recent climate goals,” is not supported by substantial evidence. CEQA does not automatically invalidate a previously adopted GHG reduction plan any time a subsequent state climate goal is established. Instead, CEQA requires that an agency’s analysis must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. (14 CCR 15064.4(b)). To that end, in determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project's consistency with the State's long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency's analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project's incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (14 CCR 15064.4(b)(3)). SB 32, which was signed into law on September 8, 2016, requires CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The CAP sets an aggressive emissions reduction target of 49% below 2010 per service population emissions by 2035, which was established to meet a target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. (CAP p. 28-29). The commenter presents no evidence to suggest why the CAP target, which aligns with a reduction of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, is not consistent with the SB 32 goal of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 or, more broadly, with a strategy to address incremental contribution to climate change. To the contrary, the reductions analyzed in the DEIR substantially exceed the SB 32 goal. Furthermore, the CEQA guidelines state that, when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, a lead agency should consider 246
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 92
Final Environmental Impact Report
the “extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)).” (14 CCR 15064.4(b)(3)). SB 32 and other “more recent climate goals” are not regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan.

Instead, such goals are statements of policies and objectives. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2016) 62 Cal.4th 204, 222-223). Neither SB 32 nor the 2022 Scoping Plan establish regulations implementing the Legislature’s statewide goals for reducing GHG emissions for specific projects within the meaning of 14 CCR 15064.4(b)(3). (Id.).

Therefore, the CAP is not invalid for streamlining purposes simply because it predates the existence of certain non-regulatory policies or goals.

Finally, the commenter’s assertion that the CAP is not a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions and streamlining and should therefore not be used because the CAP contains no analysis or substantial evidence showing that the adoption of specified measures will reduce the City’s GHG emissions to a particular level on a city-wide or project level basis, is not supported by the substantial evidence contained in the EIR. The CEQA guidelines allow a lead agency the discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to rely on a project-specific quantitative analysis of GHG emissions or to rely on emissions reduction plan-based standards. (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). Although the CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency should consider the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, section 15064.4 does not mandate the use of any specific method or numerical threshold to measure the significance of GHG emissions. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2016) 62 Cal.4th 204, 221). Here, the CAP adopts specific Climate-Ready Development Standards that were chosen because they directly implement the policies of the City’s GHG reduction plan. (CAP p. 70). As referenced in Appendix B of the DEIR and the City’s CAP, the Climate-Ready Development Standards describe project design features and intent as well as the development standard required to meet that intent.4 Chapter 4 of the CAP discusses emission reduction strategies and provides extensive analysis and substantial evidence to support the GHG emissions reduction benefits of the specified Climate-Ready Development Standards. (CAP p. 31-56).

Therefore, the CAP is consistent with the criteria set forth in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1)(D).

In addition as discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the City’s CAP meets the requirements of Section 15183.5(b), since the CAP has (A) quantified GHG emissions for both existing and projected targets for years 2020 and 2035; (B) established a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG would not be cumulatively considerable; (C) identified and analyzed the GHG emissions, segmented by Sector and Source within the City; (D) specifies a group of measures in the CAP Development Review Checklist that is to be implemented on a project basis that would collectively achieve the specified emissions levels; (E) establishes mechanisms to monitor the Plan’s progress toward achieving the levels; (F) the CAP was adopted by the City Council in June 2014, after a public review process. 4 Planning Division, and Vista Environmental, Coachella Airport Business Park Project Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis § (n.d.); Planning Division, Climate Action Plan § (2015), pages 68-

70. https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/1/2/12129446/climate_action_plan.pdf. 247
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 93
Final Environmental Impact Report
Although the CAP was prepared before the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans, both of these Plans and the CAP were prepared based on the ultimate goals provided in AB 32 of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore, the Service Population targets are for residential developments and are not applicable to a business park. The DEIR includes adoption of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would result in a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions. Furthermore, as cited in DEIR Section 4.8, pages 4.8-82 through 4.8.92, the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, which includes several quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions through incorporating elements such as Passive Solar Design, the use of Alternative Fuels for construction equipment, and implementation of a traffic demand program for construction contractors with 20 or more employees, resulting in a 1.6 percent reduction in GHG emissions. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 13-5 The commenter states that the Project would have a significant cumulative impact that would not be resolved by CAP compliance, and that the City’s determination that MM GHG-1 would reduce the Project’s GHG impact to a less-than-significant level was erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence. Refer to Responses 13-3 and 13-4, above. 13-6 The commenter repeats their assertion that the CAP is not a qualified streamlining instrument under CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b)(1). Refer to Response 13-4, above. 13-7 The commenter repeats similar comments made above regarding MM GHG-1. The commenter states that the Project’s annual per-service population GHG emissions would be

10.84, and that the CAP aims to reduce GHG emissions per service population (sp) to 7 MTCO2e /sp by 2020 and 4.2 MTCO2e/sp by 2035. The commenter asserts that the Project would exceed both targets, and the DEIR makes no showing that the per- service-population metric would be reduced through the implementation of MM GHG-1.

As detailed above in Responses 13-3 and 13-4, the CAP provides four compliance paths and the DEIR is based on implementation of all applicable development standards provided in the CAP Development Review Checklist. As such, the Service Population metric is not applicable to the proposed Project.
13-8 The commenter opines that the DEIR’s claim that MM GHG-1 would allow the Project to achieve a 10% reduction in construction GHG emissions, is not supported by substantial evidence and relies on unsubstantiated assumptions, and that the off-road equipment required by MM GHG-1 would not result in an 8.4% reduction in construction GHG emissions because alternative fuels is not the same as requiring zero emission equipment.

The commenter misinterprets the DEIR’s consistency analysis for MM GHG-1. MM GHG-1 requires more than the use of alternative fuels for construction equipment. As the DEIR states, MM GHG-1 requires the Project Applicant to prepare a Construction Emissions Reduction plan that demonstrates the use of multiple best practices to realize a 10% reduction in GHG emissions from construction equipment and transportation demand management strategies. (DEIR p. 4.8-13). In addition to the use of alternative fuels for construction equipment, these best practices include the use of electric or hybrid construction equipment and construction equipment idling limits. (DEIR p. 4.8-13). The DEIR states that the Project shall install 248
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 94
Final Environmental Impact Report
temporary power poles to enable the restriction of gas-powered construction equipment and other construction best practices to reduce GHG emissions. (DEIR p. 4.8-13). The consistency analysis for MM GHG-1 states that the combination of these measures, and not the use of alternative fuels alone, will result in a reduction in construction related GHG emissions of 10% (DEIR p. 4.8-13).

As discussed in Attachment B2 of the FEIR, and as shown in the Energy Use Calculations in Table L of Appendix B1 of the DEIR – the fuel used by the generators, welders, and air compressors, all of which are stationary equipment that would be required to be electrified and run off of the temporary power poles, represent 8.4% of the total off-road equipment fuel used during construction of the proposed Project. The remaining 1.6% reduction would be achieved through implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Program.

Although, the commenter is correct that there are several other sources of GHG emissions during construction, they are negligible when compared to GHG emissions from petroleum fuel use and the Development Standards for this measure are limited to use of alternative powered equipment as well as implementation of TDM plan for construction workers. As such, the Project construction activities were correctly determined to be consistent with the City’s CAP and no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 13-9 The commenter states that the 1.6% reduction through a traffic demand plan (TDM) lacks detailed analysis or enforcement mechanisms to ensure the TDM is effective and that, overall, the DEIR did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Project, even with MM GHG-1, would achieve the CAP’s goals.

DEIR Table 4.8-4 outlines the Project’s consistency with the CAP Development Review Checklist, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, which are addressed on p. 4.8-13 and p. 4.8-17. The stated 1.6% reduction in emissions is derived from the Project’s adoption of TDM program elements related to the use of public or employerprovided transit, vanpools, or other similar demand management programs, which will reduce emissions associated with automobile trip generation related to employment. Reductions in Project-related operational emissions were calculated by the VMT Project Analysis on page 57 of the Coachella Airport Business Park Final TIA and VMT Analysis (Appendix I of the DEIR) and Section 4.1.2 (on page 46) of the Coachella Airport Business Park Detailed CalEEMod report (Appendix B of the DEIR). As stated in Response 13-3, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 addresses enforceability by stating that the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the mitigation measures, including TDM programs, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. (DEIR p. 4.8-20).

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the DEIR did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Project would achieve the CAP’s goals, refer to Response 13-3.

The CAP has provided substantial evidence that shows implementation of TDM deployment Citywide would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 5%.5 The DEIR includes a Projectspecific analysis that analyzes the operational emissions based upon a very conservative 5 Planning Division, Climate Action Plan § (2015). Page 55. https://cityofcoachellageneralplanupdate.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/1/2/12129446/climate_action_plan.pdf. 249
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 95
Final Environmental Impact Report
analysis, which includes a VMT analysis based upon the ITE category for a Business Park land use. In addition, the DEIR incorporates information showing the Project will result in a lesser reduction in operational emissions than previously described in the City’s General Plan Programmatic EIR and CAP. This analysis is consistent with Public Resources Code §21083.3, resulting in a more conservative reduction of 1.6% for implementing a TDM plan. As such, no changes regarding this comment have been made to the DEIR. 13-10 The commenter states that the DEIR’s analysis of consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans ignores the Project’s conflicts with the 2022 Scoping Plan and other applicable plans.

The commenter states the Project is inconsistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s key targets for electrification and decarbonization.

The DEIR addresses the 2022 Scoping Plan in detail on p. 4.8-6. In that discussion, the DEIR addresses the State’s goals of decarbonization and reducing fossil fuel dependency by focusing on clean energy options, both of which necessarily involve electrification. For example, the DEIR states the following:
“CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality on November 16, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out the sector-by-sector roadmap for California, the world’s fifth largest economy, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier, outlining a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve the state’s climate target. The Plan addresses recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom and extends and expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The Plan also takes the unprecedented step of adding carbon neutrality as a science-based guide and touchstone for California’s climate work. Specifically, this plan:
o Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
o Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels.
o Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs. o Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document.
o Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands (NWL) to the state’s GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality. o Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture. o Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action. o Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success.” 250
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 96
Final Environmental Impact Report
The DEIR adopts mitigation measure MM GHG-1, which specifies requirements to electrify and decarbonize construction equipment operation and reduce diesel fuel usage as discussed in Response 13-8. Of note, the 2022 Scoping Plan provides a statewide roadmap for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier, but it does not create any new project-level laws or regulations with which the Project might conflict. (See 2022 Scoping Plan p. 1).

Although new regulations may be forthcoming, CARB has not yet adopted any statewide regulations to implement the 2022 Scoping Plan’s electrifying industrial manufacturing energy demand goal of 50% by 2045.

As regards Executive Order B-55-18, the applicable significance threshold is whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. EO B-55-18 is not a plan, policy, or regulation with which the Project must comply; instead, it is an order to establish a statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. (see Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2016) 62 Cal.4th 204, 222). The 2022 Scoping Plan is a plan for reducing GHG emissions that adopts a roadmap for California to achieve EO B-55-18’s carbon neutrality goal. The DEIR addresses the 2022 Scoping Plan on p. 4.8-6. However, as discussed above, the 2022 Scoping Plan has not yet created any new project-level laws or regulations with which the Project would conflict. Regarding commenter’s assertion that the DEIR ignores the 2017 Scoping Plan, refer to Response 13-3.

The 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans are discussed in several places throughout the AQ/GHG/HRA Report, including Sections 3.2, 6.3, and 6.4. Also, as detailed above in Response 13-4, the CAP was prepared to meet the overall GHG reduction goals provided in the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
13-11 The commenter asserts that the Project claims it is in compliance with transportation sector policies when it is actually relying on vehicle manufacturer compliance to indirectly satisfy the 2022 Scoping Plan requirements. The commenter further asserts that the finding of less-thansignificant impacts after mitigation improperly relies on the State.

The DEIR states that the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future transportation sector policies through vehicle manufacturer compliance, including Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, and other regulations. (DEIR p. 4.8-20). Many of these regulations, such as Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced Clean Trucks, are vehicle manufacturer-specific regulations with no applicable project-level requirements. Others, such as Advanced Clean Fleets, have requirements applicable to both vehicle manufacturers and private fleets. However, CARB is currently in the process of repealing the parts of the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation that apply to private fleets.6 To the extent CARB adopts and enforces transportation sector policies that specify project-level requirements, the Project will comply with all applicable requirements. Finally, 6 California Air Resources Board (CARB) – Rulemaking Division. The Proposed Amendments to the Advanced Clean Fleets and Low Carbon Fuel Standards Regulation § (2025). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2025/acf_lcfs/atta1.pdf.

251
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 97
Final Environmental Impact Report
the CEQA guidelines define mitigation as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating impacts, or compensating for impacts. (14 CCR 15370). Consistency with applicable transportation sector policies does not constitute mitigation or deferred mitigation.

In addition, as discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, CEQA allows for taking credit for emissions reductions provided by State Regulations. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
13-12 The commenter notes that the Project is likely to rely on diesel fuel in its operations, and therefore potentially conflicts with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s objectives. The commenter restates that the DEIR does not specifically address how the Project will comply with the goal of electrifying 50% of industrial energy demand by 2045.

Refer to Response 13-10. In addition, as discussed on page 4.6-3 of the DEIR and in Attachment B2 of the FEIR, the proposed Project will be required to meet the current Title 24 requirements, for each phase of construction, which will likely require any buildings constructed around the year 2045 to be net zero energy. More specifically, the Project, to the maximum extent feasible, shall utilize alternative or non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane or compressed natural gas (CNG), or electrical batteries for all off-road equipment (i.e., nonstreet legal), such as forklifts and street sweepers used onsite for warehouse operations. The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Table 2-1: Actions for the Scoping Plan Scenario: AB 32 GHG Inventory sectors refers to “Other Industrial Manufacturing” without providing additional specifics as to the type and scale of these uses. As the Project would develop a Business Park on the Project Site, the end user tenants have not been identified and assuming the entire Project would include manufacturing uses is not consistent with the Project Goals and Objectives. As such, the Project would utilize these design measures to reduce the level of emissions for the end-user tenants. Therefore, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
13-13 The commenter repeats their assertion that the DEIR’s significance analysis lacks discussion of applicable GHG reduction plans, including the 2017 Scoping Plan. The commenter reiterates that the Project will exceed both the 2030 and 2050 targets.

The 2017 Scoping Plan provides goals and guidance applicable at the statewide level.

Regarding the 2017 Scoping Plan’s statewide goals for total GHG emissions of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050, as cited in the comment, the 2017 Scoping Plan specifically states: “These goals are appropriate for the plan level (city, county, subregional, or regional level, as appropriate), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State.” (2017 Scoping Plan, p. 99, footnote 241). As stated in the responses above, the DEIR relies on compliance with the CAP to establish consistency with CEQA requirements related to GHG emissions analysis and provides a discussion of quantified GHG emissions for informational purposes only. (DEIR p. 4.8-11).

Please refer to response 13-2. Furthermore, as detailed in Response 13-4 above, the Service Population targets are for residential developments and are not applicable to the proposed Project. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 252
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 98
Final Environmental Impact Report
13-14 The commenter repeats that the Project neither discusses, nor demonstrates consistency with, Executive Order B-55-18. Executive Order B-55-18 is discussed in Section 6.3 of Appendix B1 of the DEIR. Refer to Response 13-10, above.
13-15 The commenter states that the DEIR impermissibly incorporated mitigation before determining significance. The commenter further states that the DEIR should have concluded that the Project’s GHG impact would be significant before analyzing impact with mitigation included.

As detailed above in Response 13-3, the quantification of GHG emissions was provided but not used for determination of significance. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 was prepared to show compliance with the CAP. This is not compression of the analysis, since the unmitigated condition is self-evident, as it consists of not implementing Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would result in non-compliance with the CAP. 13-16 The commenter asserts that more mitigation would be required to sufficiently reduce the Project’s potentially significant impact, requiring a thorough discussion of mitigation measures. The DEIR did not consider any other mitigation to reduce the Project’s potentially significant impact, based on the erroneous determination that MM GHG-1 would be sufficient to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impact.

The CEQA guidelines specify that a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements of a previously adopted plan in accordance with the criteria specified in 14 CCR 15183.5(b)(1). As discussed in Response 13-4, the CAP is such a plan. The CEQA guidelines specify that an environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. (14 CCR 15183.5(b)(2)). No additional mitigation is required. The CAP confirms this, stating that compliance with the CAP shall be determined based on compliance with the applicable development standards presented in Climate-Ready Development Review Checklist: “A “No” response to an applicable Project Design Feature will require a project be adjusted to comply . . .” (CAP p. A-10). Here, the City has determined that the Project will be compliant with the CAP with the implementation of mitigation measure MM GHG-1.

In addition, as discussed in the DEIR (page 4.8-20 and in Attachment B2 of the FEIR, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 was prepared per the direction of the CAP and utilized the Development Standards provided in the CAP Development Review Checklist to develop the measures included in Mitigation Measure GHG-1. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
13-17 The commenter repeats previous comments regarding the sufficiency of the Project’s proposed mitigation, stating that after requiring operational emission reductions to the maximum feasible extent, the City could require the Applicant to purchase offsets for the 253
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 99
Final Environmental Impact Report
Project’s remaining GHG emissions. The commenter continues that there are many GHG mitigation measures that the City failed to consider.

CEQA does not require maximum feasible mitigation, even for a finding of significant cumulative impacts, where the lead agency determines that the adopted mitigation is effective to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. As a general rule, CEQA does not specify the types of mitigation that should be adopted for a project, leaving that decision to the lead agency. (See Goleta Union Sch. Dist. v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1030).

In addition, as discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the commenter is not correct as the DEIR found a significant GHG impact and provided Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to reduce the GHG impact to less than significant levels. As detailed above in Response 13-16, the reduction measures included in Mitigation Measure GHG-1 were developed from the CAP Checklist. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 13-18 The commenter concludes by restating the assertions discussed above and requesting to be put on the interest list to receive updates about the progress of this Project. Comment noted. 254
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 100
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 1 of 30)
255
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 101
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 2 of 30)
256
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 102
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 3 of 30)
257
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 103
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 4 of 30)
258
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 104
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 5 of 30)
259
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 105
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 6 of 30)
260
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 106
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 7 of 30)
261
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 107
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 8 of 30)
262
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 108
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 9 of 30)
263
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 109
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 10 of 30)
264
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 110
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 11 of 30)
265
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 111
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 12 of 30)
266
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 112
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 13 of 30)
267
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 113
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 14 of 30)
268
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 114
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 15 of 30)
269
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 115
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 16 of 30)
270
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 116
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 17 of 30)
271
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 117
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 18 of 30)
272
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 118
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 19 of 30)
273
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 119
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 20 of 30)
274
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 120
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 21 of 30)
275
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 121
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 22 of 30)
276
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 122
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 23 of 30)
277
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 123
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 24 of 30)
278
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 124
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 25 of 30)
279
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 125
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 26 of 30)
280
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 126
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 27 of 30)
281
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 127
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 28 of 30)
282
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 128
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 29 of 30)
283
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 129
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 14 (page 30 of 30)
284
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 130
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 14
Kim Freeburn, Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
September 4, 2025
14-1 This comment includes a general introduction and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 14-2 This comment discusses CDFW’s role as California’s Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency under CEQA. Comment noted that CDFW is submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA and may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. The Comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
14-3 This comment includes a general summary of the proposed Project, its objectives, location, and timeframe and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
14-4 The commenter asserts that the DEIR has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources. The commenter also concludes that the DEIR lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW.

The commenter requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised DEIR.

The comment is overly broad and cannot be addressed in detail. Responses to individual issues raised by the commenter are addressed below.
14-5 The commenter expresses a concern that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the DEIR. The commenter states that the DEIR lacks a complete assessment of biological resources associated with nesting birds, burrowing owls, and bats within the Project site and surrounding areas.

As confirmed in the Biological Resources Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum (provided as Attachment C2 of this FEIR), the assessment of the existing environmental setting associated with the Project site is provided in Section 4.4.1 on pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-16 of the DEIR. The assessment is adequate as required by CEQA. These issues are discussed as responses to individual comments further below.
14-6 The commenter states that CDFW is concerned that the Mitigation Measures proposed in the DEIR are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. The comment is overly broad. Individual issues are discussed below. 14-7 The commenter states that the DEIR and its supporting documents lack an adequate assessment of biological resources that may occupy the adjacent Whitewater River and the 285
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 131
Final Environmental Impact Report
Airport Boulevard bridge. Specifically, the commenter states that the DEIR lacks the following:
1) an analysis of the potential for the Airport Boulevard bridge to support nesting birds and bats, 2) the results of focused burrowing owl surveys within the Project site and adjacent Whitewater River, 3) adequate analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the Project associated with lighting, and 4) adequate analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the Project associated with noise on wildlife using the Whitewater River, including the Airport Boulevard bridge, and the vacant, vegetated parcel to the north.

The DEIR contains an assessment of the Project’s Study Area (Project site and a 300-foot surrounding buffer) that includes much of the width of the Whitewater River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and the Airport Boulevard bridge. The Airport Boulevard bridge is outside of the Project site and would not be impacted by the Project. As stated on page 4.4-24 of the DEIR, direct impacts may occur if active nests are located near the Project site and are abandoned due to visual and/or acoustic Project-related actions such as construction noise, lighting, and fugitive dust. These impacts could lead to individual mortality and/or harassment that might reduce nesting success. Additionally, as stated on page 4.4-25 of the DEIR, direct impacts to western yellow bat may occur if an active roost is located within the California fan palm oasis that occurs just north of the Project area, due to visual and/or acoustic Projectrelated disturbance. In addition, as discussed in Response 4-5 and shown in Section 3.0, Errata, of this FEIR, MM BIO-3 will be clarified to include the Airport Boulevard bridge since it is included as an area of suitable roosting habitat. Therefore, as noted in the Project’s BRA and DEIR, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM BIO-1 (Nesting Bird Avoidance/Pre-construction Surveys), MM BIO-3 (Emergence Bat Survey), MM BIO-5 (Worker Environmental Awareness Program), and MM BIO-8 (Standard Construction Best Management Practices). Further responses regarding each species are provided below.

Additionally, the commenter recommends the DEIR be revised to include the findings of a complete, recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including Special Species of Concern (“SSC”) and California Fully Protected Species. The commenter recommends a biological inventory include a buffer area surrounding the Project including the Whitewater River and Airport Boulevard bridge. The commenter recommends the DEIR be revised to include an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources, including, but not limited to lighting and noise, and identification of appropriate avoidance, minimization, and Mitigation Measures.

As described in Section 2.5 Literature and Database Review of the BRA, the biological resources within a Study Area comprising the Project site plus a 300-foot buffer were analyzed, which is standard practice for a biological reconnaissance survey. Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the BRA show that the Study Area included much of the width along the portion of the Whitewater River that is adjacent to the Project site as well as the Airport Boulevard bridge crossing over the Whitewater River. Therefore, the Study Area described in the BRA and DEIR is adequate.
286
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 132
Final Environmental Impact Report
Based on the Attachment C2 of this FEIR, Project site conditions have not appreciably changed since the time of the field reconnaissance survey. The commenter provides no evidence to suggest any changes or any reason to believe that the inventory is inaccurate as to current conditions on the site, and an updated field reconnaissance survey would not likely result in substantial changes to the BRA’s or DEIR’s observed species lists, described vegetation communities, presence or absence of potentially jurisdictional waters, or determination of habitat suitability for special-status species with at least some potential to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, no further action is recommended. 14-8 The commenter suggests adding the following Mitigation Measure addressing the assessment of Biological Resources to the DEIR:
“Prior to Project construction activities, a complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas, including the Whitewater River, Airport Boulevard bridge, and the vacant, vegetated area to the north, with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), will be completed. Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable are required. Acceptable species-species survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to 3 years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, of if surveys are completed during periods of drought.”
As noted in Response 14-7, there is a low potential for findings from the July 7, 2023, field reconnaissance survey to appreciably change with an updated reconnaissance survey.

Therefore, the addition of the Mitigation Measure suggested above is not warranted. 14-9 The commenter quotes the relevant sections of the Fish and Game Code related to nesting birds, and summarizes Take authorization under the CVMSHCP. The commenter concurs that the Project site and surrounding areas, including the Whitewater River, contain suitable habitat for birds that nest on the ground and in shrubs and trees, as confirmed in the Draft EIR. However, the commenter considers Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be inadequate in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant. The commenter recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds and their nests and eggs are avoided.

As noted in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR and in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, no state listed threatened or endangered birds were detected within the Study Area. As discussed in Response 4-3 of this FEIR in response to a similar comment made by the USFWS, 287
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 133
Final Environmental Impact Report
MM BIO-1 has been revised in order to clarify and amplify this MM and facilitate its adequacy in protecting nesting birds. This comment is further addressed in Response 14-11 below. 14-10 The commenter states that the DEIR lacks an adequate discussion of the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to nesting birds located within the Project site and within the adjacent Whitewater River, including the Airport Boulevard bridge, which may provide suitable habitat for cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), and requires additional mitigation.

The impact analysis in Section 4.4.3 of the DEIR contains an analysis of impacts to nesting birds within both the Project site and areas near the Project site, which include both the Whitewater River and the Airport Boulevard bridge. This comment is further addressed in Response 14-11 below.
14-11 The commenter recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting onsite. The commenter recommends updates to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Nesting Birds). As noted in Attachment C2 and Section 3.0, Errata, of this FEIR, and as discussed in Response 4- 3 of this FEIR in response to a similar comment made by the USFWS regarding the scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been updated with some of the commenter’s suggested language in order to clarify and amplify this Mitigation Measure and facilitate its adequacy in protecting nesting birds. The recommended updated Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Nesting Bird Avoidance/Pre-construction Surveys is as follows:
“Prior to issuance of the Project’s grading permit, the following measures shall be implemented:

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 134
Final Environmental Impact Report
consider the species involved and relevant level of tolerance to adjacent activity, the location of the nest relative to proposed activities, and site conditions that naturally buffer the location, such as vegetation screening, topography, etc. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. If construction activities are delayed or paused for more than 14 days during the nesting season, the nest survey will be re-initiated for areas that still contain potential nesting habitat. No activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into this buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist, if it is determined that encroachment will not adversely impact the nesting birds.” This change has been made to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, page 4.4-26 of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR.
14-12 The commenter summarizes the Fish and Game Commission’s determination that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under CESA, which affords the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA, and states if Project activities, including relocation, could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.

The commenter further states that throughout the CVMSHCP area, Permittees must ensure that activities occurring within their jurisdictions do not result in the take, possession, or destruction of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs, and that any such activity is unlawful and would not be a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP.

The commenter concurs that the Project site and surrounding area including the Whitewater River contain suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owl.

As noted in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR and in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP requires burrowing owl surveys in CVMSHCP Conservation Areas.

The Project site is outside of a Conservation Area; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys are not required by the CVMSHCP for the Project. Although the commenter notes that, since the time of the field reconnaissance survey (July 7, 2023), and as described in CDFW’s comment above, burrowing owl has been listed by the California Fish and Game Code Commission as a candidate species for listing under CESA, the potential listing does not change the provisions of the MSHCP or the impact analysis and conclusions set forth in the DEIR. The City will enforce the MSHCP provisions, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2 as clarified in this FEIR, significant impacts to burrowing owls will be avoided. In addition, there was no sign or burrows onsite during the biological resources field survey. This comment is further addressed in Response 14-13 below.
289
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 135
Final Environmental Impact Report
14-13 The commenter notes the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which generally aligns with Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation measures for burrowing owl under the CVMSHCP (Section 4.4). However, the commenter states these measures are outdated and do not ensure that impacts to burrowing owl individuals and their nests and eggs will be avoided.

The biological resource field survey found no burrowing owl or their sign, and no burrows on the Project site. The commenter provides no evidence that the species occupies the site. The site is not located in a CVMSHCP Conservation Area. MM BIO-2 requires pre-construction surveys for the species. If the species were to locate on the site, the required pre-construction surveys would identify them, and cause Project activities, including grubbing prior to grading, to stop until such time as a mitigation program, including a relocation if needed, was reviewed and implemented by CDFW, thereby eliminating the potential for Take of the species on the Project site. The City is complying with the requirements of both the CVMSHP and CESA by requiring MM BIO-2, and no change is required to assure protection of the species on the site.

In order to provide clarity and direction, MM BIO-2 has been modified to explicitly cite the CDFW Staff Report as the correct protocol, and to prohibit Project activities until mitigation or avoidance measures are implemented, should the species be identified on site.

Based on the comments provided, MM BIO-2 will be revised as follows:
“BIO-2 Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Survey
In accordance with Section 4.4 Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of the CVMSHCP, a pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shallwill be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 500 feet of the Project disturbance footprint to identify burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owl. Potentially suitable burrows shall be checked by a qualified biologist to see if they are occupied or not prior to the start of Project disturbance activities. If the burrow is unoccupied, the burrow shall be made inaccessible to burrowing owl, and the Project may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, Project activities shall be immediately halted within 500 feet of the burrow. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS and prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to re-commencing Project activities within the restricted area the burrowing owl shall be relocated pursuant to accepted CDFW protocols. A burrow is assumed occupied if records indicate that at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow on site during the past three years. For grounddisturbing activities, pre-construction surveys should be repeated when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days. If there are no records for the site, surveys must be conducted to determine, prior to construction, if burrowing owl are present. Active burrows shall be avoided during the burrowing owl breeding season (January 15 to August 31) with an appropriate buffer zone as determined by a qualified biologist. If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to 290
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 136
Final Environmental Impact Report
nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow) in coordination with CDFW and the City.

Passive relocation may only occur in the non-breeding season (September to January).

This change has been made to Section 4.4, Biological Resources, page 4.4-26 of the DEIR and is reflected in Section 3.0, Errata, of the Final EIR. It should be noted that this change does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. 14-14 The commenter notes the BRA’s language describing known roosting habitats of special-status bat species having potential to occur onsite and concurs that the Airport Boulevard bridge may contain crevice habitat that is suitable roosting habitat for these and other bridgeroosting bat species. The commenter states that the DEIR lack an assessment of potential roosting habitat for bats associated with the Airport Boulevard bridge, the findings of focused surveys associated with suitable bat roosting habitat, or an analysis and discussion of potential direct and indirect impacts of the Project, such appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

The commenter also suggests the DEIR also include focused surveys for western yellow bat (CVMSHCP-Covered Species, SSC), which has the potential to roost in the grove of fan palms (Washingtonia sp.) located just north of the Project site.

As noted on page 4.4-25 of the DEIR, and in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, western yellow bat is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, and the CVMSHCP does not require focused bat surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires a special-status bat species emergence survey if construction activities are to occur within 300 feet of the California fan palm oasis during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31). The emergence survey will be conducted in areas of suitable roosting habitat, which also include the Airport Boulevard bridge, during the maternity season to document the presence of special-status bat species maternal roosting habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 also requires that any special-status bat species observed during the maternity roosting season within or adjacent to the Project area be avoided and provided a minimum buffer as determined by the qualified biologist (a 100-foot to 300-foot buffer is recommended) prior to the commencement of construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 adequately reduces potential impacts to special-status bat species to less than significant levels. Therefore, no revisions to DEIR are warranted relative to this comment, other than the clarification that the Airport Boulevard Bridge will be included in the areas subject to emergence survey required under Mitigation Measure BIO-3. 14-15 The commenter recommends the DEIR be revised to include an analysis of Project impacts associated with artificial nighttime lighting on bats that may use the grove of fan palms and the Airport Boulevard bridge.

The Project site is located immediately west of SR 86, which produces significant existing light sources from travelers on that roadway. Potential Project lighting impacts are described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, on pages 4.1-22 and 4.1-23 of the DEIR. Specifically, page 4.1-23 of the DEIR states that all light sources in the Project site’s parking areas, walkways and on the 291
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 137
Final Environmental Impact Report
exterior of proposed buildings would be shielded downwards and use of building materials on the Project site would be required to minimize glare. As such, light spill would not be permitted to occur, and the Project’s compliance with City regulations and standards including the Coachella Municipal Code Chapters 16.28.150(L), Improvements and Grading, and Chapter 17.56.010(J)(2)(e), Glare from Signs, and lighting requirements in Chapter 17.60, Development Standards, would maintain appropriate and safe lighting levels onsite while minimizing light and glare on adjacent properties. Additionally, pages 4.4-24 and 4.4-25 of the DEIR include a description of potential Project impacts to nesting birds and bats due to visual (which includes lighting) and/or acoustic Project-related disturbance. Mitigation Measure AES-2 of the DEIR requires the construction contractor to locate and aim all constructionrelated nighttime security lighting away from adjacent uses, including both residential and non-residential areas neighboring the Project site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-8 requires, among other standard construction Best Management Practices, any construction lighting to be directed toward the work area and away from adjacent habitats. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment. 14-16 The commenter considers Mitigation Measure BIO-3 in the DEIR to be inadequate in scope and timing to avoid or reduce impacts to bats to a level less than significant, and recommends updates to the Mitigation Measure.

Please see Response 14-14. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 as written will facilitate avoidance of special-status bat species during the maternity roosting season with establishment of a 100- foot to 300-foot buffer should any special-status bat species be detected. Additionally, the Project would not directly impact suitable habitat for special-status bat species. As shown on Figure 5 of the BRA and Exhibit 4.4-1 of the DEIR, the California fan palm oasis is located outside and north of the Project site, and the Airport Boulevard bridge is located outside and southwest of the Project site. Therefore, the analysis and proposed Mitigation Measures in the BRA and DEIR are adequate to reducing impacts to special-status bats to less than significant. No additional actions are recommended.
14-17 The commenter states that the DEIR lacks an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting, including impacts associated with construction and long-term operations, on biological resources including migratory birds that fly at night, burrowing owls, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The comment further states that the Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect wildlife in vacant areas adjacent to the Project site.

See Response 14-15. Potential direct and indirect Project lighting impacts are described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, on pages 4.1-22 and 4.1-23 of the DEIR and potential cumulative Project lighting impacts are described on pages 4.1-25 and 4.1-26. Project compliance with City regulations and standards related to artificial nighttime lighting and Mitigation Measures described above and in the DEIR would reduce any potential direct, indirect, and/or cumulative artificial nighttime lighting impacts to biological resources to less than significant.

No additional analysis or Mitigation Measures are warranted. 292
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 138
Final Environmental Impact Report
14-18 The commenter suggests the City add a new mitigation measure related to potential artificial light impacts associated with the Project.

See Response 14-15. No additional analysis or Mitigation Measures are warranted. 14-19 The commenter states that construction activities may result in substantial noise through road use, equipment, and other Project-related activities, which may adversely affect wildlife species in several ways as wildlife responses to noise can occur at exposure levels of only 55 to 60 decibels. The commenter further cites several studies that describe how noise can impact wildlife. Refer to Response 14-20, below. This comment does not warrant changes to the DEIR. The Comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
14-20 The commenter acknowledges page 4.4-24 of the DEIR indicates that the noise associated with Project construction activities may result in direct impacts to nesting birds located near the Project site. CDFW notes that the Project may result in direct and indirect impacts associated with noise to biological resources occupying the adjacent Whitewater River, the Airport Boulevard bridge, and the vacant, vegetated parcel to the north of the Project area.

The commenter states that the DEIR lacks additional analysis discussion of the potential impacts of noise on biological resources in areas surrounding the Project area. CDFW recommends the DEIR be revised to include an analysis of potential impacts to wildlife associated with construction noise and to incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimizations, and Mitigation Measures. Specifically, the commenter recommends the inclusion of Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: Construction Noise, which would require the City to ensure the use of noise suppression devices for generators for temporary use in emergencies and to restrict the use of construction equipment to hours least likely to disrupt wildlife (e.g., not at night or in the early morning).

As noted in Attachment C2 of this FEIR, pages 4.4-24 and 4.4-25 of the DEIR state that direct impacts may occur if active nests are located near the Project site and are abandoned due to visual and/or acoustic Project-related actions such as construction noise, lighting, and fugitive dust. These impacts could lead to individual mortality and/or harassment that might reduce nesting success. Therefore, impacts to special-status birds and raptors would be potentially significant without mitigation. Additionally, page 4.4-25 of the DEIR states that direct impacts to western yellow bat may occur if an active roost is located within the California fan palm oasis that occurs just north of the Project site, due to visual and/or acoustic Project-related disturbance. Impacts to special-status bat species would be considered significant without mitigation. Section 4.13, Noise, on pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-28 of the DEIR contains an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with the Project and Mitigation Measures that would reduce Project noise impacts to less than significant levels. Cumulatively, implementation of the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 described above, the rest of the Mitigation Measures in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, and the noise Mitigation Measures described within Section 4.13, Noise, of the DEIR, would reduce noise impacts associated with the Project to biological resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, the existing analysis in the DEIR, the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 described above, the rest of the Mitigation Measures in 293
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 139
Final Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.4, and the Mitigation Measures in Section 4.13 of the DEIR are adequate to mitigate noise impacts to biological resources in accordance with CEQA. No additional analysis or Mitigation Measures, including Mitigation Measure BIO-[C] as proposed by the commenter, are warranted.
14-21 The commenter lists a number of impacts to biological resources associated with cannabis cultivation, including pesticides, fertilizers/imported soils, water pollution, groundwater depletion, vegetation clearing, construction and other development in floodplains, fencing, roads, noise, artificial light, dams and stream crossings, water diversions, and pond construction, as applicable to the Project. CDFW recommends that the DEIR includes an analysis of cannabis-specific impacts to biological resources that may result from Project activities. First, any potential cannabis operations would be located within buildings constructed on the Project site, thus avoiding the potential impacts described in this comment.

Moreover, the implementation and operations of a Conditionally Approved Cannabis operation would be required to comply with the State and Local regulatory requirements that would avoid impacts to biological resources, which include:

Public Resources Code (PRC) §1602 prohibits the diversion or obstruction of any bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream or lake
1) PRC §5650 prohibits discharge of cannabis irrigation water into any Waters of the State
2) PRC §5652 prohibits disposal of cannabis waste near any body of water 3) Public Resources Code (PRC) §12029(b) establishes a watershed enforcement program
In addition to mandatory State regulations associated with Commercial or Retail Cannabis uses, local regulations would include the following standard regulatory requirements preventing impacts to surface and groundwater or on-site native vegetation:
1) Cannabis waste material shall be handled separate of solid waste collection services (trash, recyclable, organics) unless alternative disposal method approved by the State Department of Cannabis Control (DCC)
2) Cannabis waste material shall be housed in a locking enclosure that is not accessible to unauthorized, individuals including the public.
3) Installation of a backflow device on all common-area buildings and at each irrigation water connection shall be required in order to prevent groundwater contamination. The backflow device must be in compliance with City of standards and specifications.7 7 City of Coachella Municipal Code, Article VI: Chapter 13.03 – Water Service Systems. https://library.municode.com/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT13PUSE_CH13.03WASESY (accessed February 25, 2026)
294
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 140
Final Environmental Impact Report
In addition to the aforementioned potential environmental impacts, the commenter lists additional impacts that are not applicable to the Project. 1) Fencing: The Project does not propose fencing that would obstruct or divert any river, stream, lake, or other body of water.
2) Roads: The Project would construct, and dedicate public Rights-of-Way, in accordance with the City’s road standards. The Project would not construct any roads that obstruct or divert any river, stream, lake, or other body of water. 3) The Project would not create sources of artificial lighting creating impacts to wildlife or wildlife corridors. Refer to Section 4.1 of the DEIR for a more detailed discussion of lighting impacts.
4) The Project is not located near any dams, stream crossing, or ponds. As such, the Project would not impact such resources from any potential Retail or Commercial cannabis operations. Refer to Section 4.4 of the DEIR for a more detailed discussion of impacts to wetlands or riparian features.

Additional operational odor impacts could result from future commercial cannabis operations, which have the potential to create significant odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. As discussed in Responses 14-21 and 14-22, any future commercial or retail cannabis uses would be subject to State and local regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 402, Coachella Municipal Code § 5.68.040(P), and Coachella Municipal Code Chapter 5.68.130, Operating Standards, (C) Odor Control. As such, with compliance with applicable regional and local cannabis-related regulations, this impact would be less than significant 14-22 The commenter states the DEIR lacks discussion of whether the Project’s cultivation activities will involve pesticides such as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. Because of the potential for Project activities to involve the use of pesticides in cannabis cultivation and other cannabis-related activities, the commenter requests the addition of a mitigation measure specifically related to pesticides.

Should cannabis uses occur on the Project site, a Cannabis Cultivator license would be required from the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Pursuant to Business and Professions Code (BPC) §26060(c ), the DCC has developed guidelines and regulations for the use of pesticides in the cultivation of cannabis and residue in harvested cannabis.

In April 2025, the DCC adopted the Medicinal & Adult Use Cannabis Regulations which includes Article 5, §15719 requiring residual pesticide testing for all cultivated cannabis products. In addition, the Department of Pesticide Regulation requires that the application of pesticides or other pest control in connection with the indoor, outdoor, nursery, specialty cottage, or mixed-light cultivation of cannabis complies with Division 6, §11401 et seq. of the Food and Agricultural Code and its implementing regulations.

Any future Cannabis Cultivation use shall be licensed by the State in order to operate and would be subject to the aforementioned regulatory requirements. As such, no specific mitigation measure is required and compliance with these requirements ensures that no 295
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 141
Final Environmental Impact Report
impacts would occur from the use of pesticides in conjunction with cannabis operations. No additional analysis or Mitigation Measures are warranted. 14-23 The commenter notes that cannabis cultivation operations often use artificial lighting or “mixed-light” techniques in greenhouse structures and indoor operations to increase yields, and that they also employ exterior lighting for security. The commentor then describes common impacts associated with cannabis operations and states the DEIR does not specify whether artificial light will be used either indoors or outdoors for cannabis cultivation or whether building design will allow indoor light to escape. The commentor then suggests the DEIR be revised to include an analysis of cannabis-specific impacts of artificial light on biological resources and MM BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting.

Refer to Response 14-18, above. The Project does not propose greenhouse facilities. Any cannabis uses would be fully contained within a building, and cannabis cultivation and manufacturing uses would not be viewable from public areas, in compliance with Section

5.68.130 of the City Municipal Code. As such, light spill would not be permitted to occur, and the Project’s design features would maintain appropriate and safe lighting levels onsite while minimizing light and glare on adjacent properties. No additional analysis or Mitigation Measures are warranted.
14-24 The commenter describes the role of the CDFW LSA Program in cannabis licensing and provides a link for additional information on permitting. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. In addition, the Project is not anticipated to impact any river, stream, or lake. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 14-25 The commenter notes that the DEIR states that “native plant materials and other droughttolerant plants will be used in all non-turf areas of Project landscaping. Large expanses of lawn and other water-intensive landscaped areas will be kept to the minimum necessary and consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of the Project, while providing soil stability to resist erosion.” The commenter asserts that the DEIR lacks additional information on landscaping plans, such as plant palette or planting locations. The commenter recommends the DEIR include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP Table 4-112. The commenter also recommends water-wise concepts in any Project landscape designs.

The City and Project Applicant acknowledge that Table 4-112 in Section 4 of the CVMSHCP contains a list of Coachella Valley native plants that are recommended for landscaping, which the Project’s landscaping plan would be in compliance with. Since the Project will meet the City's landscape requirements and because invasive species are already covered by MM BIO7, the existing Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is sufficient to address the commenter’s concerns regarding Project landscaping and no revisions to the measure are warranted. 14-26 The commenter states that information developed in EIRs and negative declarations be incorporated into a database to be used for subsequent or supplemental environmental 296
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 142
Final Environmental Impact Report
determinations. Comment noted. The Comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. 14-27 The commenter states that environmental document filing fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination and required for the Project approval to be final. Comment noted.

The Comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
14-28 The commenter concludes by restating the assertions discussed above and provides contact information for CDFW.

See Responses 14-1 through 14-27. As described above, with minor modification to mitigation measures required for clarity, the DEIR comprehensively addresses impacts to biological resources, and provides mitigation measures which will assure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
297
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 143
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 15 (page 1 of 4)
298
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 144
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 15 (page 2 of 4)
299
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 145
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 15 (page 3 of 4)
300
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 146
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 15 (page 4 of 4)
301
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 147
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 15
Janki Patel, Branch Chief - Local Development Review
Division of Transportation Planning
California Department of Transportation, District 8
September 10, 2025
15-1 This comment provides a general introduction and includes a summary of the proposed Project’s general location. Responses to specific comments are provided below. 15-2 This comment includes a general summary of the proposed Project and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 15-3 The commenter notes that the Project will require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit prior to construction.

As discussed on page 55 of the TIA, the Project will be conditioned to submit for a Caltrans Encroachment Permit application process prior to the signalization of the main access point on Airport Boulevard for consistency to applicable Caltrans standards and guidelines to the satisfaction of Caltrans Traffic Operations and Electrical Operations Functional Units.

An Encroachment Permit from Caltrans is already shown as a required permit in Table 2.5 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the DEIR. Therefore, no changes to the DEIR are warranted. 15-4 This comment provides general instructions for the Encroachment Permit discussed above, from the Local Development Review Department. As discussed in Response 15-3, the Project will be conditioned to submit for a Caltrans Encroachment Permit, which will include compliance with the steps provided in this comment. No revisions to the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.
15-5 The commenter states that, while Caltrans understands that the VMT impacts associated with this Project are considered significant and unavoidable, and that the applicant has proposed certain VMT mitigation measures, Caltransstrongly encourages the continued exploration and implementation of additional VMT reduction strategies, wherever feasible. The Project applicant will continue to coordinate on additional feasible VMT reduction through the Project phased development. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.
15-6 The commenter requests the following additions/revisions to the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis, from the Traffic Operations Department:

1. Please include detail layout plan of the Project included lane geometry, striping and spacing distance from the driveway access to the nearest intersection. (provide with readable engineering scale)
302
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 148
Final Environmental Impact Report
Please refer to Attachment I3, Supplemental Transportation Exhibits (Replacement of the Airport Boulevard Bridge Over Whitewater River Project, Preliminary Project Overview Interim Striping) (Dokken Engineering, September 2024), of this FEIR, which provides the information requested by the commenter. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. These exhibits will be added to Section 4.17, Transportation, of the DEIR. This comment does not assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.

2. Please include the queueing analysis in the report.

The queuing analysis is already included in Appendix L of the Project’s TIA. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment. 15-7 The commenter requests the following additions/revisions to the Project’s TIA, from the Traffic Forecasting & Analysis Department. It should be noted that the requested revisions are the preferences of the commenter only and do not affect the Project’s transportation analysis or impacts.

1. Figure 1-2 identifies study intersections by number only and does not depict the study roadway segments listed in the report text. Per Caltrans TIA Guidelines, the project study area should be clearly documented for both intersections and roadway segments. Recommend (1) including a table cross-referencing each numbered intersection with its roadway names, including project access points, and (2) revising the figure to also show and label the study roadway segments so that all facilities identified in the study area description are consistently referenced in the text, figures, and LOS analysis tables.

Numbered intersections with roadway names are provided in the Project’s TIA Executive Summary and Section 1.0, Project Introduction (Appendix I1 of the DEIR). Numbered roadway segments are provided in the Project’s TIA Executive Summary and Section, 1.0 Project Introduction. Please refer to Attachment I2 of this FEIR, for the updated roadway segment tables and updated Figure 1-2. As mentioned above, the requested revisions are the preferences of the commenter only and do not affect the Project’s transportation analysis or impacts.

2. The methodology for developing future volumes does not fully align with Caltrans TIA Guidelines. Per Section 4.3, base year model volumes must be validated against observed counts (PeMS/Caltrans ramp stations) and documented if adjustments exceed ~10%. The use of interpolated years (2027, 2030, 2033) should be justified against SCAG/RIVCOM official horizon years, and reliance on the NCHRP 255 Directional Volume Method may not be consistent with regional model practices for State facilities. In addition, capping 2045 volumes at the lower of 2033 or model 2045 outputs understates long-range growth and is inconsistent with the requirement to use adopted 2045 model outputs as the governing horizon year.

Recommend revising the methodology to follow Caltrans TIA Guidelines and RTP/SCS horizon years for forecasting future traffic volumes.
303
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 149
Final Environmental Impact Report
There are no detectors and therefore, no available PeMS counts along the SR-86 or SR-111 facilities within the Project vicinity to validate base year model volumes. The approved scoping agreement in Appendix A of the Project’s TIA (Appendix I1 of the DEIR) was coordinated with Caltrans to use the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002). Per section IV.D in the Caltrans Guide, the regional traffic model reflecting the most current land use and planned improvements was used. The methodology requested by the commenter is not included as an approved methodology in the Caltrans Guide. The future volume approach and methodology has been approved by the City of Coachella. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.

3. Per Caltrans TIA Guidelines, the adopted SCAG/RIVCOM RTP/SCS horizon year (2045) should be used as the governing cumulative year. Furthermore, since the Project’s final phase extends to 2033, cumulative analysis may also need to consider a 20-year horizon beyond buildout (~2053) to ensure long-range impacts on State facilities are fully addressed.

Recommend revising the methodology accordingly.

Caltrans approved the scoping agreement in Appendix A of the Project’s TIA (Appendix I1 of the DEIR) which specified the use of the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002). Per section III.B in the Caltrans Guide, the methodology requested by the commenter is not included as an approved methodology in the Caltrans Guide. The study scenarios have been approved by the City of Coachella. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.

4. The TIA applies a 2% heavy vehicle share with SANBAG PCE factors. For State facility analysis, Caltrans typically references Highway Design Manual/HCM-based PCE standards.

Recommend confirming that the truck mix and PCE assumptions used are consistent with Caltrans requirements for the SR-86 ramps or provide justification for use of SANBAG factors.

Please refer to the Attachment I2 of this FEIR for the updated SR-86 ramp intersections using truck percentages from the latest Caltrans Traffic Census Program Truck Traffic counts, which were revised in order to be consistent with Caltrans requirements for the SR-86 ramps, as noted by the commenter. The increase in heavy vehicle share requested by Caltrans did not change any of the traffic study conclusions. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.

5. Distribution comes from a RIVCOM select-zone run, but the TIA does not include a distribution matrix or truck routing confirmation to/from designated truck routes (SR-86/CA111). Recommend (1) appending an AM/PM distribution-by-approach table derived from the RIVCOM select-zone run, and (2) documenting truck routing to/from SR-86/CA-111 using the Caltrans Truck Network (with a note that no restricted local streets are used).

Please refer to Attachment I2 of this FEIR for the updated for distribution by approach figure and truck network discussion, which were revised in order to be consistent with Caltrans requirements. This additional information requested by Caltrans did not change any of the 304
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 150
Final Environmental Impact Report
traffic study conclusions. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.

6. The TIA’s existing traffic counts were collected on January 18, 2024, which falls within the same week as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Per Caltrans TIA Guidelines, traffic counts should avoid holiday weeks or other atypical periods. Recommend either (a) verifying these counts against supplemental counts collected during a typical non-holiday week, or (b) providing confirmation using later 2024 counts or PeMS/Caltrans station data that January 18 conditions are representative. In addition, several appendix sections appear incomplete or blank; recommend revising the submittal to include the full supporting materials.

There are no detectors and therefore, no available PeMS counts along the SR-86 or SR-111 facilities within the Project vicinity to validate the existing counts. Additionally, scheduling of the traffic data collection was coordinated and approved by the City of Coachella to be conducted on the Thursday after the Monday holiday, with two days in between for traffic to normalize. The January 18, 2024, date is an appropriate date to conduct traffic counts and reflects typical, high-season conditions. In addition, the commenter is incorrect that several TIA appendix sections were not provided. All TIA appendix sections are provided including the full supporting materials; however, additional blank appendix cover slip sheets were erroneously inserted which appeared on PDF pages 212 - 226, which have since been removed from the overall appendices. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.

7. Several items fall outside the scope of Traffic Forecasting & Analysis and should be reviewed in consultation with Caltrans Traffic Operations. These include (a) freeway/ramp operational analyses and 95th-percentile off-ramp queue checks, (b) reliance on CMP “Modified HCM 1999” methods versus Caltrans-approved operational methodologies, (c) provision of 5-year TASAS collision history at SR-86 ramp terminals and CA-111 intersections, (d) evaluation of ramp-area crossings and frontage facilities consistent with Caltrans Complete Streets policy, and (e) documentation of on-site stacking/queue containment for the fast-food drive-through and fuel bays. Please coordinate with Operations to determine whether additional HCM6 freeway/ramp analysis, safety evaluation, and site circulation checks are required.

The approved scoping memo dated December 13, 2023, was based on the Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance published July 2020. The methodologies requested by the commenter were added to the Final version of the Guidance published February 2024 and are not applicable here since the approved December 13, 2023, scoping memo pre-dates the February 2024 version of the guidance. Therefore, no revisions to the Project’s TIA or the DEIR are warranted relative to this comment.
15-8 This comment advises that the project must conform to American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards requirements, and of the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase.
305
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 151
Final Environmental Impact Report
This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
15-9 This comment reiterates that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit and provides contact information for the Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits.

This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
15-10 This comment identifies Caltrans’ departmental responsibilities. This does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 15-11 The commenter concludes by providing a contact email and phone number for any questions associated with the above comments. Comment noted. The Comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
306
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 152
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 1 of 106)
307
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 153
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 2 of 106)
308
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 154
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 3 of 106)
309
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 155
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 4 of 106)
310
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 156
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 5 of 106)
311
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 157
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 6 of 106)
312
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 158
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 7 of 106)
313
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 159
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 8 of 106)
314
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 160
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 9 of 106)
315
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 161
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 10 of 106)
316
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 162
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 11 of 106)
317
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 163
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 12 of 106)
318
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 164
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 13 of 106)
319
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 165
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 14 of 106)
320
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 166
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 15 of 106)
321
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 167
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 16 of 106)
322
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 168
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 17 of 106)
323
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 169
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 18 of 106)
324
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 170
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 19 of 106)
325
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 171
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 20 of 106)
326
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 172
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 21 of 106)
327
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 173
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 22 of 106)
328
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 174
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 23 of 106)
329
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 175
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 24 of 106)
330
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 176
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 25 of 106)
331
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 177
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 26 of 106)
332
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 178
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 27 of 106)
333
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 179
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 28 of 106)
334
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 180
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 29 of 106)
335
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 181
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 30 of 106)
336
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 182
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 31 of 106)
337
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 183
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 32 of 106)
338
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 184
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 33 of 106)
339
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 185
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 34 of 106)
340
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 186
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 35 of 106)
341
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 187
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 36 of 106)
342
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 188
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 37 of 106)
343
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 189
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 38 of 106)
344
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 190
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 39 of 106)
345
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 191
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 40 of 106)
346
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 192
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 41 of 106)

EXHIBIT A
347
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 193
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 42 of 106)
348
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 194
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 43 of 106)
349
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 195
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 44 of 106)
350
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 196
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 45 of 106)
351
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 197
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 46 of 106)
352
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 198
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 47 of 106)
353
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 199
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 48 of 106)
354
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 200
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 49 of 106)
355
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 201
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 50 of 106)
356
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 202
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 51 of 106)
357
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 203
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 52 of 106)
358
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 204
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 53 of 106)
359
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 205
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 54 of 106)
360
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 206
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 55 of 106)
361
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 207
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 56 of 106)
362
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 208
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 57 of 106)
363
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 209
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 58 of 106)
364
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 210
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 59 of 106)
365
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 211
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 60 of 106)
366
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 212
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 61 of 106)
367
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 213
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 62 of 106)
368
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 214
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 63 of 106)
369
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 215
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 64 of 106)
370
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 216
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 65 of 106)
371
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 217
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 66 of 106)
372
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 218
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 67 of 106)
373
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 219
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 68 of 106)
374
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 220
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 69 of 106)
375
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 221
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 70 of 106)
376
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 222
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 71 of 106)
377
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 223
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 72 of 106)
378
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 224
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 73 of 106)
379
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 225
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 74 of 106)
380
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 226
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 75 of 106)
381
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 227
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 76 of 106)
382
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 228
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 77 of 106)
383
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 229
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 78 of 106)
384
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 230
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 79 of 106)
385
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 231
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 80 of 106)
386
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 232
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 81 of 106)
387
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 233
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 82 of 106)
388
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 234
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 83 of 106)
389
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 235
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 84 of 106)
390
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 236
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 85 of 106)

EXHIBIT B
391
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 237
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 86 of 106)
392
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 238
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 87 of 106)
393
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 239
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 88 of 106)
394
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 240
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 89 of 106)
395
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 241
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 90 of 106)
396
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 242
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 91 of 106)
397
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 243
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 92 of 106)
398
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 244
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 93 of 106)
399
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 245
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 94 of 106)
400
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 246
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 95 of 106)

EXHIBIT C
401
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 247
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 96 of 106)
402
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 248
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 97 of 106)
403
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 249
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 98 of 106)
404
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 250
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 99 of 106)
405
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 251
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 100 of 106)
406
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 252
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 101 of 106)
407
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 253
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 102 of 106)
408
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 254
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 103 of 106)
409
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 255
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 104 of 106)
410
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 256
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 105 of 106)

EXHIBIT D
411
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 257
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter 16 (page 106 of 106)
412
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 258
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment Letter 16
Aidan P. Marshall
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy via Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Attorneys at Law
September 11, 2025
16-1 This comment provides a general introduction and includes a general summary of the proposed Project. Comment noted. The comment does not request any further information nor assert any issue that must be addressed further pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. 16-2 This comment states that upon review of the DEIR by independent air quality, noise and transportation experts, the commenters opine that the DEIR, its supporting documentation, and City records demonstrate that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA by failing to analyze impacts associated with a necessary water line extension; use of onsite backup generators; cold storage uses; Valley Fever; and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs).

The comment is overbroad and provides no substantial evidence to support the commenter’s assertions. Responses to individual environmental issues are provided below. 16-3 This comment asserts that the DEIR’s transportation analysis is unsupported in that the DEIR fails to support its VMT analysis with substantial evidence, overestimates reductions from VMT mitigation and underestimates the distance traveled by trucks. The commenters states that feasible mitigation that would further reduce the Project’s impacts should be considered.

The comment is overbroad and provides no substantial evidence to support the commenter’s assertions. Responses to individual environmental issues are provided below. 16-4 The commenter states that the DEIR fails to support its noise analysis and mitigation with substantial evidence. The comment is overbroad and provides no substantial evidence to support the commenter’s assertions. Responses to individual environmental issues are provided below.
16-5 The commenter repeats the assertion that the DEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions, violates CEQA’s analytical requirements, and fails to properly mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts. The commenter urges the City to remedy the deficiencies in the DEIR by preparing a legally adequate revised DEIR and recirculating it for public review and comment. The commenter further notes that the City provided an extension to submit their DEIR comments due to the City’s failure to make DEIR appendices and other reference documents available throughout the entire comment period and the commenter reserves the right to provide supplemental comments at any and all later proceedings related to this Project. The comment is overbroad and provides no substantial evidence to support the commenter’s assertions. Responses to individual environmental issues are provided below. Detailed responses have been provided to each of the comments provided by the commenter. Furthermore, the City provided additional information requested in a timely 413
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 259
Final Environmental Impact Report
manner and allowed for an extended response period for the commenter to submit their comment letter. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted. 16-6 The commenter provides details regarding a Statement of Interest regarding its non-profit organization, Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
16-7 This comment asserts that the City failed to provide timely access to documents referenced, relied upon and incorporated by reference in the DEIR during the public review and comment period, which originally ran from July 21, 2025, to September 3, 2025, in violation of CEQA’s requirement that the DEIR and all reference documents be made available during the comment period. As a result, the commenter requested access to reference documents and an extension of the DEIR comment period, which the City partially granted. The commenter continues with the details of previous letters sent to the City for the purpose of requesting additional Project information (refer to Comment Letters 9, 10 and 11 in this FEIR dated August 6, 2025), and Response 9-1). The commenter sent an additional letter on August 21, 2025, requesting additional information and an extension of the comment period for at least 45 days from the date on which the City releases these documents for public review, to which the City replied that late comment letters would be accepted no later than September 11, 2025. The commenter states that not all requested information was received and that the City’s response provided insufficient time for public review of the requested DEIR reference documents, as required by CEQA. The commenter asserts that public review of the City’s analysis of the Project’s air emissions and health risk was substantially impaired without access to the DEIR Appendices’ supporting calculations, which included the HRA’s AERMOD files and risk calculation spreadsheets; moreover, the commenter asserts that review of other analyses in the DEIR remains impaired without access to documents listed in the DEIR’s References sections.

See Responses 9-1, 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-4. CEQA requires that the public notice specify the address where copies of the draft EIR and all documents referenced in the draft EIR are available for review. (PRC § 21092(b)(1)). CEQA Guidelines Section 15085(e) also requires that the lead agency must post the draft EIR on its internet website, if any. (PRC § 21082.1(d)). The requirements of PRC § 21092(b)(1) and PRC § 21082.1(d) are meaningfully different. PRC § 21092(b)(1) requires that the notice shall specify the “address where copies of the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, are available for review, and a description of how the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration can be provided in an electronic format.” PRC § 21082.1(d) requires that the “draft environmental impact report, environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration” must be posted on the agency’s website, if any. Therefore, while CEQA requires that the notice must include the address where all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report are available for public review, CEQA does not require that all documents referenced by the draft EIR must be made available electronically or be posted on the agency’s website.
414
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 260
Final Environmental Impact Report
The City published a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) stating that the draft EIR would be available for public review and comment beginning on July 21, 2025. As required by CEQA, the NOA provided the address where all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report would be available for review, and the City published the draft EIR and all primary appendices on its website:
“Document Availability: Copies of project documents, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and appendices are available at the City of Coachella Development Services, Planning Division, 53990 Enterprise Way, Coachella, CA 92236, and on the City’s website https://www.coachella.org/departments/development-services/environmental-reviews. The City of Coachella is currently open Monday through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and closed every Friday. Additionally, the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices will be provided to the following library for public review:

Coachella Library, 1500 Sixth Street, Coachella, CA 92236 Hours: Sunday: Closed. Monday: Closed. Tuesday: 10:00 am-6:00 pm.

Wednesday: 11:00 am-7:00 pm. Thursday: 11:00 am-7:00 pm. Friday: 10:00 am-6:00 pm. Saturday: 10:00 am-6:00 pm”
On August 11, 2025, the City made a good faith effort to provide the additional reference documents requested by CARE CA in its August 6, 2025, letter. On August 21, the commenter notified the City via email that Appendices C through G of Appendix B were missing from the City’s website. On August 22, the City provided those documents to the commenter and posted the documents to the City’s website.

The commenter asserts that the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR section 15087(c)) require that the “entire DEIR” including all reference documents must be “readily accessible” in electronic format. This is inaccurate. In fact, 14 CCR section 15087(c) states, in part, that “The notice shall disclose the following . . . (5) The address where copies of the EIR and all documents incorporated by reference in the EIR will be available for public review. This location shall be readily accessible to the public during the lead agency's normal working hours.” This aligns with the requirement of PRC § 21092(b)(1), which requires that the notice shall specify the “address where copies of the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, are available for review” and with the City’s NOA, which specifies the address and normal working hours, Monday through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., during which the City’s Development Services Division made the project documents, the draft EIR, and appendices available for public review.

The commenter provides no evidence to indicate that the documents referenced in the draft EIR were not available for public review at the City’s Development Services Division as listed in the NOA. In the absence of contrary evidence, it is presumed that the technical appendices and supporting documents were available at the address provided in the NOA for the duration of the required public review period. (Evid. Code § 664; see Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 926: “Although circumstantial evidence of compliance with section 21092.5, subdivision (a), appears in the record, we also inquire 415
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 261
Final Environmental Impact Report
“whether the record contains evidence [the agency] failed to comply with the requirements of its ... regulatory program. In the absence of contrary evidence, we presume regular performance of official duty.”” (internal citations omitted)). The City is confident that all documents referenced in the Draft EIR could have been provided to the commenter beginning on July 21, 2025, had the commenter visited the City’s Development Services Division at the address and during the working hours listed in the NOA. Instead, the commenter elected to submit requests for additional information via email more than two weeks after the Draft EIR was made publicly available, and the City promptly responded to those email requests and supplied the requested information.

Furthermore, CEQA requires that notice must be given in sufficient time so that the public is able to use the full review period, and courts apply the principle that “statutory requirements for public notice are fulfilled if the public agency makes a good faith effort to follow the procedures prescribed by law” when reviewing a lead agency’s compliance with the notice requirements of PRC § 21092. (Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 922-924). The City has fully satisfied that requirement here. In addition to fully complying with statutory notice and availability requirements, the additional efforts by the City, and its CEQA consultant, to provide requested supporting documents in electronic format and to extend the public comment submission period plainly constitute a good faith effort to enable public review.

Finally, CEQA does not require recirculation of the EIR where new information merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (PRC § 21092.1, Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112.). Fulfilling the request to provide reference information for the documents requested by CARE CA in its August 6, 2025, letter amplifies the information already contained in an adequate EIR and already available at the address provided in the NOA; therefore, recirculation is not required. Furthermore, this comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted. 16-8 The commenter asserts that the City is in violation of the California Public Records Act and the California Constitution because the City has not provided timely access to public records related to the Project in response to a Public Records Act request submitted by the commenter on August 6, 2025. Refer to Response 16-7, above.
16-9 The commenter asserts that the DEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. The commenter cites CEQA Guidelines section 15378 regarding project description definition regulations. This comment includes a generalized statement regarding the Project description and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.
16-10 The commenter states that the DEIR fails to describe the Project impacts and the cumulative impacts associated with the location and construction schedule of a new water line extension 416
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 262
Final Environmental Impact Report
required for the Project (“[t]he proposed Project would connect to a new water line extension through the CWA’s [Coachella Water Authority’s] proposed 20” water line from near Avenue 54 southerly along Grapefruit Boulevard, then easterly under the existing railroad tracks and the CVSC to the Project site.”) The commenter notes that the DEIR states that “CWA’s new 20- inch water line extension from Grapefruit Boulevard is a separate project being undertaken by CWA with independent utility (including serving portions of the City located to the east of SR 86) and separate CEQA review,” and opines that this is an indication that the City intends to proceed with piecemealed environmental review of the water line extension from the rest of the Project.

The commenter then cites related case law to support their assertion regarding the prohibition of piecemealing under CEQA and states that by failing to analyze impacts associated with construction of the water line which the DEIR acknowledges is necessary for the Project’s operations, the DEIR fails to analyze the whole of the action. The commenter reiterates their assertion that the EIR must be revised and recirculated to describe and analyze these impacts.

As detailed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR (pages 4.19-13 and 4.19- 14), the water line extension is a separate project that would occur with or without the proposed Project. In addition, the water line project IS/MND (Subsequent Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Phase III A-2 Transmission Main, East Coachella Valley Water Supply Project, Valley View Mobile Home Park Water Consolidation Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2019079095) (April 2022) referenced in the DEIR and utilized in its analysis of domestic water infrastructure, concluded that the water line project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects directly or indirectly. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR. 16-11 The commenter states that the DEIR’s discussion of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risk impacts fails to describe the reasonably foreseeable use of back-up generators because backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. Therefore, the commenter asserts that the DEIR’s omission of onsite generator emissions results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.

The Project does not include the use of cold storage; therefore, the need to permanently install emergency backup generators is not required. The SCAQMD defines an emergency backup generator as a standby ICE or turbine for non-utility power generation that does not operate more than 200 hours a year and is only operated in the event of an emergency power failure or for routine testing and maintenance is considered an emergency backup generator for power generation.
8 An emergency power failure is defined as a Stage II or Stage III electrical emergency declared by the Independent System Operator (ISO) and during actual or imminent 8 SCAQMD. “What Is Considered an Emergency Backup Generator by the South Coast AQMD?” Emergency generators, November 3, 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact3. 417
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 263
Final Environmental Impact Report
blackouts. CEQA Guidelines §15269 allows for emergency projects to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA (PRC § 21083, 21080, and 21172 et. al.).

In the event that such a declared power emergency were to occur, the use of an emergency backup generator may be utilized on a temporary basis, until power is restored and only SCAQMD approved and certified stand-by generators are authorized for use. The use of any generator would be limited to the duration of any declared power outage and also would be exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines §15269. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, the use of any emergency backup generator would be covered by Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the Project to be designed to generate a minimum of 50% of the power onsite from renewable sources, which would include the use of solar generation and battery storage systems. In addition, the proposed warehouses are not being designed for cold storage or for 24-hour operations. As a result, the installation of back-up emergency generators are not anticipated to be required for this Project. Therefore, the commenter’s assumption that diesel-powered backup generators would be installed as part of the proposed Project is not correct. As such, no changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
16-12 The commenter opines that the DEIR fails to analyze impacts associated with cold storage.

Therefore, the commenter asserts that the DEIR’s assumption that the Project will include no cold storage uses results in underestimation of health risk, air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts, since cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by transport refrigeration units (TRUs) and onsite storage.

Additionally, the commenter states that the developer should record a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space. The commenter opines that the City should include such title restrictions for this Project unless an EIR is prepared that analyzes and mitigates impacts associated with cold storage uses and other more intensive warehousing uses.

The Project Description was developed in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15124, which includes a clear statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project and a clearly written statement of the objectivesthat will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR. The Project Description does not include a description, details, or proposed objectives that include any references to a “cold storage” use. If more intense uses than described in the project description were to be proposed in the future, then the City would be required to evaluate the proposed changes under CEQA Guidelines §15162 and prepare a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or Addendum to the Certified EIR, as appropriate. The commenter’s assertion that the EIR is insufficient because it does not evaluate a use that is not proposed in the clearly written Project Description is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15144, which does not require the City to “foresee the unforeseeable”. Accordingly, the DEIR does not analyze the impacts associated with cold storage warehouse usesthat have not been proposed, and the commenter’s sheer speculation 418
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 264
Final Environmental Impact Report
about such uses does not require or warrant further analysis under CEQA. No changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.
16-13 The commenter asserts that the DEIR fails to disclose, analyze and mitigate potentially significant impacts and cites CEQA Guidelines, stating that failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.

This comment includes a generalized statement regarding requirements under CEQA and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis. The comment is overbroad and refers to no specific environmental issues. Therefore, no response is warranted. 16-14 The commenter claims that the DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate exposure to Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever cocci) on the Project site, as the DEIR does not include any discussion or mitigation of this potential health risk impact. The commenter opines that the DEIR must be revised to disclose and mitigate this impact in a recirculated EIR.

Valley Fever (coccidiodes immitis) is a fungal infection present in the southwestern United States. People and animals can be infected with Valley Fever by breathing in the fungus from the environment. Common symptoms can include fatigue, cough, fever, headache, and muscle aches or joint pain). In a small number of cases, the infection can cause chronic pneumonia.

The presence of the Valley Fever fungus can be found in the soil throughout the Coachella Valley. According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the number of reported cases in Riverside County (as of 2024) was 456 and the total number of cases in Riverside County (since recording began in 2001) is 3,377. While Valley Fever can affect humans and animals, certain populations can be more susceptible to infections, such as those who work in the construction industry. The CDPH has published common prevention tips to help reduce infections, such as avoiding dust outside in places where Valley fever is common, staying inside with the windows and doors closed, and use of an N95 respirator if passive avoidance techniques are not possible. When construction is occurring outdoors, state and local regulations require that soils be wet down prior to any ground disturbing activities and staying “upwind” are the areas being disturbed. In addition, the SCAQMD prohibits grading when sustained windspeeds are in excess of 25 mph. SCAQMD also requires implementation of RULES 403 and R403.1, regulating the reduction of fugitive dust and particulate matter.

Contrary to the assertion in the memo attached as Exhibit A to this comment letter, the stringent dust control measures required by SCAQMD are recognized, by the California Department of Industrial Relations, as effective in substantially reducing the risk of Valley Fever associated with construction projects in the Coachella Valley. As explained in Exhibit B2 to this Final EIR, SCAQMD provides “the most stringent dust suppressant rules in the State, which is the primary means of transmission of Valley Fever.” In addition, Exhibit B2 points out that the number of reported cases, on a year-by year basis is extremely low (approximately 10 -19 incidents per 100,000 population), as compared to the San Joaquin Valley where incidents are 75+ per 100,000. Based on the stringent SQAQMD 419
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 265
Final Environmental Impact Report
dust control requirements and the extremely low incident rate in the Coachella Valley, the supplemental expert air quality report confirms that “Valley Fever is not likely to be transmitted from construction activities associated with the proposed project (see Exhibit B2 to this Final EIR, at p. 7). As the potential for project impacts relating to Valley Fever is considered negligible, the DEIR does not separately analyze the impacts associated Valley Fever. No changes in regard to this comment have been made to the DEIR.

Finally, neither the comment nor the information provided in memo attached as Exhibit A, from Clark & Associates, provide any substantial evidence that the Coccidiodes Immitis fungus is present on the Project site in any substantial quantities or that Valley Fever cases have resulted from similar development projects within the City of Coachella. Valley Fever is not a significant risk in Riverside County and adherence to the SCAQMD’s very stringent fugitive dust regulations during construction of the proposed Project would go above and beyond the Valley Fever suppression requirements in the Central Valley, where it is a potential health risk.

The additional information provided in this response and the supporting expert evidence provided in Appendix B2 expands and amplifies on the Air Quality analysis set forth in the Draft EIR but does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR because it does not prevent the public from commenting on a significant adverse environmental effect or a feasible means of mitigating such a significant effect. As such, no changes to the DEIR nor recirculation of the Draft EIR are warranted. 16-15 The commenter asserts that the DEIR applies VMT screening and significance thresholds that are unsupported by substantial evidence; specifically, that the DEIR does not present evidence that the County’s significance thresholds or screening thresholds are appropriate for projects in the City of Coachella, relying on a court decision in San Diego County as evidence against the DEIR’s analysis.

CEQA does not require that a Lead Agency adopt its own standards. In this case, the City applied the Riverside County standards, as have multiple cities in the region, because the City occurs in Riverside County, and conditions in the City are consistent with those in the County.

Furthermore, the Project site is located along the boundary between the City of Coachella and unincorporated Riverside County, and use of the County’s methodology and thresholds is reasonable. In the absence of local guidance, the Riverside County’s “Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020)” were properly applied, as they provide an appropriate and CEQA-consistent framework. The guidelines include several project screening criteria which were reviewed for the project evaluation. The project includes multiple non-residential land uses which is considered as a mixed-use project.

The County guidelines recommend evaluation of each land use separately in the case of a mixed-use project (Step 1: Evaluate Land Use Type – Mixed Use, page 18). Therefore, each of the below-mentioned project uses were assessed with screening criteria:
1) 233.1 TSF (thousand square feet) large warehouse
2) 96 TSF small warehouse
420
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 266
Final Environmental Impact Report
3) 128.6 TSF self-storage
4) 76.8 TSF personal vehicle storage
5) 81 TSF small business / office
6) 8.65 TSF retail
While most of project uses are screened out, the large warehouse buildings cannot be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis and therefore, a full VMT analysis was conducted using RIVCOM3.51 as recommended in the guidelines. However, all of the project land uses were included in the model runs to appropriately account for internal capture between different uses of the project. Based on the VMT analysis, the project has a significant impact for VMT, as disclosed in the DEIR.

The VMT metric used—VMT per employee for non-residential, non-retail projects—is consistent with both the County guidelines and the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) formerly the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

While the commenter references case law regarding local thresholds, such cases do not preclude reliance on established county-level or State guidance when local standards are not yet adopted. As such, no revisions to the Project’s Transportation Analysis or the DEIR are warranted.
16-16 The commenter states the DEIR lacks substantial evidence for its VMT screening methodology that most of the Project’s components screen out of a VMT analysis, and renders the DEIR’s VMT analysis unsupported. Specifically, the commenter states that the VMT analysis in the DEIR improperly screens out, and fails to analyze, the other Project components besides the 233,000 square foot warehouse (which does not screen out of a VMT analysis), which include Small Warehouses, Small Business, Personal Vehicle Storage, Self-Storage, and Retail. The total industrial square footage proposed by the Project is 624,500 square feet, so failure to analyze VMT from these other uses results in a failure to meaningfully analyze the bulk of the Project.

The commenter further adds that the DEIR’s rationale for screening out the other non-retail uses is that “[t]he [Riverside] County Guidelines recommend evaluation of each land use separately in case of a mixed-use project,” however, the commenter opines that the DEIR misapplies this guidance and the Project does not likely constitute a mixed-use project.

Further, even if the term “mixed-use” applied broadly to projects with a mix of non-residential uses, the Project’s mix of industrial buildings would not be considered diverse enough to be considered different uses. Specifically, the County guidelines recommend that analysis of mixed-use projects be done by applying either the EPA’s MXD Model or the Institute of Traffic Engineers (“ITE”) mixed-use trip generation methodology. The commenter explains that neither of these tools split land use down to the level done in the DEIR when doing VMT screening.

As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, pages 4.17-30 through 4.17-33 of the DEIR, and in Attachment I2 of this FEIR, although the VMT metric was reported for the warehouse component that did not screen out of VMT analysis, it should be noted that the modeling 421
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 267
Final Environmental Impact Report
included the entire Project to ensure all Project land uses were represented, as described in Response 16-15. Therefore, no portion of the Project was excluded from the modeling effort, and the commenter’s assertion is incorrect.

As it relates to the assertion that the project is not a mixed use project, under the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020, Page 10), a mixed-use project is defined as one containing more than one land use type, which applies to this Project since it includes industrial, commercial and retail land uses The reference to the EPA MXD Model and ITE mixed-use trip generation methodologies pertains to the traffic/LOS analysis, not the VMT analysis. The County’s regional travel demand model (RIVCOM 3.51) appropriately accounts for trip generation and internal capture among the Project’s uses for estimating Project VMT. As such, no revisions to the DEIR are warranted.
16-17 The commenter opines that the DEIR finds that Project-related and cumulative VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable, and includes a vanpooling measure in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would reduce impacts by 3.55%, relying on a calculation in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. The commenter states that this measure should not apply and that the reduction claimed in the DEIR is thus not supported by substantial evidence.

Per the CAPCOA Handbook, the proposed Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is consistent with Measure T-11, which states, “This measure will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing GHG emissions.” The items noted by the commenter are not requirements for Measure T-11.

In addition, as discussed in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the commenter is not correct in stating that the DEIR calculates that this measure would reduce impacts by 3.55%. Although the Mitigation Measure of a Commute Trip Reduction Program was selected in the CalEEMod model run, the operational emissions shown in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR, Table 4.8-3 on page 4.8-12, shows the unmitigated emissions levels. Moreover, this table is provided for informational purposes only, as the amounts are not utilized to determine if the project would create a significant impact. However, in the consistency analysis with the CAP Development Review Checklist, it was determined that the Transportation Demand Management Program included in Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG emissions by 1.6%, which is less than half of what CAPCOA calculated for implementation of this measure. In addition, the City’s CAP found that a Citywide Transportation Demand Management Program would reduce emissions by 5% and provided substantial evidence to support that conclusion (DEIR page 4.8-13). Therefore, the use of a 1.6% reduction in emissions from implementation of the TDM provides for a conservative analysis supported by substantial evidence. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted. 422
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 268
Final Environmental Impact Report
16-18 The commenter opines that the DEIR’s air quality analysis overestimates VMT mitigation; specifically, the air quality analysis assumes a 5% VMT reduction from “Measure T-6, Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory),” but this reduction is not supported by substantial evidence. The commenter also notes that the DEIR’s transportation study calculates that the vanpool measure would only reduce VMT by 3.55%, and thus, the air quality study overestimates emissions reductions from the measure and results in higher levels of unmitigated emissions than disclosed in the DEIR. As such, the commenter reiterates their assertion that the EIR must be revised and recirculated.

The comment misstates the conclusions of the Air Quality Analysis. As shown on page 66 of the Air Quality analysis included at Appendix B to the DEIR, operational air quality emissions will be substantially below the established SQAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. It appears that the comment is based on a footnote regarding the settings for the CalEEMod modeling, which references transportation measure T-6 regarding implementation of a commute reduction program. However, neither the comment nor the attached memo from Smart Mobility (Exhibit B) provide any substantial evidence or other explanation as to how that CalEEMod setting or assumption could conceivably affect the significance of operational air quality emissions as detailed on Table Y of the Air Quality report, particularly in light of how far below the established thresholds the Project’s operational emissions would be.

Furthermore, as detailed above in Response 16-17, the 1.6% reduction in GHG emissions that the DEIR takes credit for with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 provides for a conservative analysis supported by substantial evidence. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted.
16-19 The commenter states that the DEIR underestimates the distances of the truck trips associated with the Project’s warehouse uses, which consequently underestimates the Project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs. The commenter asserts that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach should be used to calculate average truck trips which is approximately 150 miles. Consequently, the commenter opines that because truck trips to and from the Ports are reasonably foreseeable and unanalyzed in the DEIR, the DEIR underestimates transportation, air quality, and GHG impacts.

See Response 5-9, explaining why this assumption is inappropriate for the proposed Project.

No changes to the DEIR are warranted.
16-20 The commenter asserts that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze operational health risk impacts associated with the location of the Project’s proposed fuel center, at the southern border of the Project site at Airport Boulevard, with specific concern for the mobile home community across the street from the site. The commenter adds that the Project’s health risks would cumulatively considerable under draft SCAQMD numeric thresholds, which lower the significance threshold to 1 in one million; and that the siting of the fuel center violates General Plan Policy 11.3 .

As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR and in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, General Plan Policy 11.3 prohibits the siting of land uses that adversely impact existing sensitive 423
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 269
Final Environmental Impact Report
receptors, including schools, childcare centers, senior housing, and subsidized affordable housing. The existing mobile home park is not one of listed sensitive receptors in General Plan Policy 11.3. In addition, the DEIR found that the operation of the proposed Project, including the gas station would not create a significant cancer risk to the residents of the mobile home park (DEIR pages 4.3-26 through 4.3-29). Therefore, the proposed gas station is not a land use that would adversely impact sensitive receptors. The commenter also provides hypothetical thresholds that have not been adopted by the City or SCAQMD. The SCAQMD Working Group threshold changes the commenter cites are being discussed as new regulations for large warehouses that are over 100,000 square feet, which would not apply to the proposed Project. The DEIR shows that the cancer risk is within the SCAQMD adopted thresholds (DEIR pages 4.3-26 through 4.3-29) and the City relies on the SCAQMD’s expertise for developing these thresholds. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted.

The commenter refers to General Plan Policy 11.3 as lowering the significance threshold to 1 in one million; however, General Plan Policy 11.3 does not stipulate any quantitative metrics related to the evaluation of cancer risk. The proposed fueling station does not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. This shall be used as the defining criteria for determining significance.

As such no additional mitigation is required and not substantial changes to the DEIR are warranted.
16-21 The commenter notes that the DEIR includes analysis of the mobile home community’s health risks from exposure to the Project’s operations; however, upon review of the DEIR’s AERMOD model, the commenter found that impacts were underestimated because the model only includes emissions from trucks traveling onsite and on Airport Boulevard when in reality, trucks would also be driving past the mobile home community on SR-86. The commenter asserts that this underestimates the community’s exposure to DPM generated by trucks and that the DEIR’s analysis must be revised to fully disclose and mitigate these health risk impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR and in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the HRA was prepared based on guidance provided by SCAQMD that recommends that HRAs analyze truck travel up to a quarter mile from the project site or to the onramps of the nearest freeway, whichever is nearer, which is based on the assumption that trucks are very efficient and produce very little emissions when traveling at constant speeds on freeways. The mobile home park is approximately 60 feet to the south of the Project site. Furthermore, the cancer risk created by the proposed Project at the mobile home park was calculated to be as high as

3.0 per million person, which is well below the 10 per million person threshold. The commenter did not provide any evidence that extension of a road source that is located over 600 feet from the most impacted residents would more than triple the cancer risk levels that would be required to change the significance levels shown in the DEIR. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted.
16-22 The commenter makes a general statement that the DEIR fails to describe the Project’s cumulative impacts. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise an issue or comment specifically related to the DEIR’s environmental analysis.

Refer to the commenter’s specific concerns regarding cumulative impacts in Responses 16-23 and 16-24, below.
424
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 270
Final Environmental Impact Report
16-23 The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative air quality effects with existing and proposed development near the Project site.

Specifically, the commenter calculates that existing projects within 5 kilometers (km) of the Project site generate 4,000 daily truck trips, producing 5.5 lbs. of diesel particulate matter (DPM) per day and 623 lbs. of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day. The commenter also asserts that SCAQMD unadopted thresholds and Attorney General Warehouse Guidance should be used to determine cumulative impacts, including cancer risk. The commenter asserts that this analysis may result in significant cumulative air quality and health risks which are unanalyzed in the DEIR.

Regarding acceptable methodologies for an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, CEQA specifies two approaches: the “List” approach (14 CCR § 15130(b)(1)(A)) or the “Plan” approach (14 CCR § 15130(b)(1)(A)). The Draft EIR utilizes the latter, referencing existing 2003 SCAQMD cumulative analysis guidance, a policy document that SCAQMD adopted to enable compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. According to this guidance, individual projects under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in nonattainment if the project exceeds SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds. As shown in Draft EIR section 4.3, Air Quality, and section 10.3 of Appendix B of the Draft EIR, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed Project would conform to local land use plans, comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, and would not exceed the applicable regional thresholds for air pollutant emissions. As such, the Project is consistent with the applicable air quality plans in the Project area, and the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. While the SCAQMD is in the process of reviewing and updating cumulative thresholds, there are no current alternative numeric or qualitative cumulative thresholds adopted for use within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional area.

The commenter cites Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (“Kings County”) to argue that the Draft EIR’s cumulative air quality impact analysis fails to comply with CEQA. However, the cumulative impacts analysis in Kings County did not rely on the Plan approach. Instead, the Court held that the City’s EIR was deficient in accordance with the List approach because the record did not provide information regarding similar energy developments in the San Joaquin Valley air basin. (Kings County at 724).

Regarding cancer risk, as discussed in Table BB in Attachment B2 of this FEIR, the cancer risk levels drop off from 1.5 per million at Receptors 2 and 3, which represent homes located 60 feet south of the Project site to 0.2 per million at Receptor 11, which represents a home 1,900 feet from the Project site. This shows that DPM emissions disperse rapidly and cumulative projects would need to be within approximately 2,000 feet of the Project site to provide any quantifiable increase to cancer risk rates. Furthermore, the Attorney General’s guidance and the examples provided by the commenter are from very large warehouse projects. The largest warehouse in the proposed Project is 48,800 square feet, which would be considered a small warehouse in Southern California. The threshold changes the commenter cites are being discussed as new regulations for large warehouses that are over 100,000 square feet, which would not apply to the proposed Project. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted. 425
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 271
Final Environmental Impact Report
16-24 The commenter restates that the Project’s health risk impacts would exceed SCAQMD’s draft cumulative impacts significant thresholds. The commenter explains that, although the new protocols have not been formally adopted, SCAQMD comments on similar industrial projects recommend that the draft protocols be applied and that this demonstrates that the new thresholds are supported by substantial evidence, unlike the outdated 2003 guidance. The commenter describes draft SCAQMD protocols including a flowchart lowering the cancer risk significance threshold (from 10 in one million) if certain factors reflecting high pollution burden are met. The commenter asserts that this constitutes substantial evidence of a significant impact requiring disclosure and mitigation in a recirculated EIR.

The commenters assertion that application of SCAQMD’s draft cumulative impact significant thresholds constitute substantial evidence that was not disclosed in the DEIR is incorrect.

CEQA §15064(f)(5) states that, “Argument, speculation or unsubstantiated opinion…shall not constitute substantial evidence.” As the draft Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects have yet to be adopted, they are considered speculative at this time. Nevertheless, according to Table BB, of Appendix B to the DEIR, the cancer risk, per 10 million population, is

9.7 percent, which is less than the draft guidelines.

Moreover, as confirmed in the expert supplemental technical report attached as Appendix B2 to this Final EIR and detailed above in Response 16-23, the draft SCAQMD protocols are for warehouses that are over 100,000 square feet, which would not apply to the proposed Project. Therefore, the working group thresholds that have not yet been adopted by the SCAQMD are not applicable to the proposed Project. As such, no changes to the DEIR are warranted.
16-25 The commenter states that the DEIR’s construction noise significance threshold is unsupported by substantial evidence, stating that the DEIR provides that daytime construction noise under 80 dBA and nighttime construction noise under 70 dBA would be less than significant, which are thresholds from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. However, the commenter notes that the DEIR violates CEQA by failing to also identify a significance threshold for the increase in noise over ambient levels.

In addition, the commenter cites information and anticipated community reactions contained in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual that relates to long-term noise exposure over a 24-hour period, based on an average-daily noise level. This information does not pertain to short-term noise exposure, such as the on average-hourly noise thresholds recommended by the FTA for the analysis of construction activities. With regard to the assessment of short-term construction-related noise impacts, the FTA guidelines present recommended noise thresholds, taking into account the noise-sensitivity of the land use and ambient noise conditions. For residential land uses, the guidelines recommend thresholds of 80 dBA Leq for the daytime hours and 70 dBA Leq for the nighttime hours. With regard to these recommended short-term average-hourly construction noise thresholds noted in the guidelines, the guidelines state that “If these criteria are exceeded, there may be adverse community reaction.”
426
Item 4.
80237.00866\44448107.1

2.0 Responses to Comments
Coachella Airport Business Park 272
Final Environmental Impact Report
The Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy’s comment letter was reviewed, and responses were provided by AMBIENT Air Quality and Noise Consulting in the Noise Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum dated October 21, 2025, provided as Appendix H2. It should be noted that this attachment does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, it serves only to clarify or amplify information already presented in the DEIR and/or the respective technical studies. As discussed in the Attachment H2 of this FEIR and as noted in Section 4.13, Noise, of the DEIR, the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are residential land uses located approximately 60 feet south of the Project site. The analysis noted that predicted daytime and nighttime construction noise levels would exceed corresponding daytime and nighttime noise thresholds of 80 dBA Leq for the daytime hours and 70 dBA Leq. As noted in the DEIR, increases in ambient noise levels during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours would be of particular concern with regard to residential land uses due to the potential for increased levels of annoyance and sleep disruption.

With regard to daytime exposure to short-term construction noise, the nearest residential land uses are currently exposed to traffic noise emanating from the adjacent Airport Boulevard and nearby SR-86. As noted in Section 4.13, Noise, of the DEIR, ambient daytime noise levels in the vicinity of these nearest residential land uses measured approximately 68 dBA Leq with maximum instantaneous noise levels of approximately 79 dBA Lmax primarily associated with vehicle traffic on Airport Boulevard. Generally speaking, residential land uses are often exposed to increases in daytime ambient noise levels from a variety of sources, such as vehicle traffic on area roadways, landscape maintenance activities, waste-collection activities, and outdoor recreation activities. These sources can result in significant increases in daytime ambient noise levels. For instance, the use of landscape maintenance equipment, such as leaf blowers, can generate noise levels in excess of 90 dBA. With mitigation, predicted construction noise levels at the nearest residential land uses would be approximately 79 dBA Leq, or less. Predicted construction noise levels during the less noise-sensitive daytime hours would not be uncharacteristic of other existing short-term noise events (e.g., landscape maintenance activities, vehicle traffic on area roadways, waste collection activities, etc.) commonly associated with residential land uses. It is also important to note that the construction noise levels noted in the DEIR were conservatively calculated assuming that five pieces of heavy-duty offroad equipment would be located within 60 feet of the nearest residential property line. Given that transient and temporal nature of construction activities, it is highly unlikely that five pieces of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment would be operating simultaneously within 60 feet of these nearest residential land uses. As a result, actual construction-generated noise levels would likely be substantially lower, and in any event, were determined to be reduced to below the threshold of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code restrictions on construction hours (See DEIR, at page 4.13-19).

Coachella City CouncilMay 6, 2026

Coachella City Council
May 6, 2026