Planning panel recommends 43‑acre Coachella Airport Business Park to city council amid community and labor concerns

The Coachella Planning Commission on Monday recommended that the City Council consider approvals for the proposed Coachella Airport Business Park, a mixed commercial and industrial development on roughly 43 acres at Airport Boulevard and State Route 86.

Consultant planner Nicole Crist told the commission the project would ultimately provide about 624,500 square feet of commercial and industrial space in multiple parcels, with a phased build‑out and required backbone infrastructure including an Imperial Irrigation District substation and street improvements along Airport Boulevard. Staff circulated a draft and final environmental impact report and recommended that the commission forward the entitlements and certification of the EIR to the council for its decision.

The project package includes a zone change, a tentative parcel map, three conditional use permits (including allowances for future commercial cannabis uses in the northerly parcels), architectural review, a development agreement and the EIR. Crist said the EIR found most impacts could be mitigated to less‑than‑significant levels, but vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was identified as an effect the city could weigh against project benefits under CEQA.

Representing the applicant, Chris Fahey of the Hagen Company described the site as “isolated” by the freeway and a stormwater channel, and said the phasing and condominium map are meant to support small business ownership and market demand over time. “We want to create a one‑stop industrial park that provides jobs and visibility for small businesses,” Fahey said.

Residents, labor representatives and environmental groups urged the commission to delay or reject the project unless it includes stronger community benefits and environmental protections. “You’re approving vested rights and potentially giving away infrastructure that could cost residents in the future,” public commenter James Rodriguez said, citing the need for clearer DIF accounting and concerns about increased air pollution.

Labor leaders pressed for a binding community benefits agreement and a local‑hire commitment. “We want to see that the profit is shared with the local community,” said Louie Lopez, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433. Environmental advocates and nearby residents raised concerns about habitat loss and the EIR’s treatment of biological resources and air quality; Hailey Uno, a law clerk speaking for supporters of SAFER, said experts identified multiple special‑status species on the site and urged recirculation of the EIR.

Applicant and legal counsel said the environmental review took more than two years and included agency comment responses; land‑use counsel James Vaughn said the final EIR addresses agency concerns and the applicants remain open to labor discussions once entitlements and environmental review proceed.

Commissioners asked staff and the developer to clarify phasing, the timing and ownership of the IID substation, the scope of required street improvements, and how the project might produce tangible community benefits. Commissioner Fonseca moved to continue the item to negotiate community benefits and labor engagement; that motion failed for lack of a second. Chairperson Lara then moved to forward the recommendation to the City Council with a request that the council and applicant address community engagement and labor‑related considerations; the motion carried 3–1, with Commissioner Fonseca dissenting.

The commission also noted a separate town‑hall on data centers scheduled for May 11 at the Boys & Girls Club and adjourned. The City Council will receive the project packet and the certified EIR for its decision; the commission’s recommendation does not finalize entitlements.