Indio City Council
December 6, 2023

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 593 of 3061 Not to scale Not to scale
Bickel Group Architecture (2023). Site Plan.

Exhibit 5: Proposed Site Plan
The Greens Indio Project

The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 10
Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting
Conceptual exterior elevations and renderings are shown on Exhibits 6.1 through 6.4, Exterior Elevations.

Building 1 and Building 2 would both have a desert tone color palette of beiges, tans, and browns with varying plains to breakup building massing. The modern façades would include plaster walls, ledgestone, and accents of oak wood. Large glass windows would be provided along the front and side entries. Building 1 would also have service windows for the drive‐thru on the rear side of the building. Building 2 would have a large patio with a fireplace and seating on the east side of the building. The Building 2 patio would be accessible from the Indio Municipal Golf Course.

Building 3 would have an earth tone color palette of greys, tans, and beiges with dark toned aluminum awnings over the windows and entries. The façade would be various colored stucco. Large glass windows would be provided along the front and side entries, as well as service windows for the drive‐thru on the south side of the building. The proposed architecture would be consistent with Chick‐Fil‐A’s corporate colors and branding.

Building 4 would have a color palette of dark blues, greys, tans, and beiges with varying elevations to create variety in building massing. The façades would include multi‐colored metal panels and dark stone veneer. Windows would be provided along the front entry, with service windows for the drive‐thru on the east side of the building. All windows would have metal awnings. The proposed architecture would be consistent with the Dutch Bros Coffee corporate colors and branding.

The proposed landscaping concept is depicted in Exhibit 7: Landscape Plan. Existing landscape vegetation would be removed except for the palm trees in the existing Indio Municipal Golf Course parking lot. No street trees in the public rights‐of‐way would be removed. The proposed Project would include 79,075 sf (1.8 acre) of landscaping around the project site perimeter, building frontages, and parking areas.

Landscaping would incorporate typical desert climate plants with decorative boulders. The plant palette would include succulents and cacti, including fox tail agave, blue elf aloe, bear grass, and spineless prickley pear cactus. The proposed Project would have approximately 193 new trees along the project site perimeter and within the boundaries of the site. Perimeter trees would include guadalupe palm, palmetto palm tree, california palm, date palm, and Indian rosewood along the southern project site boundary.

Internal to the project site, landscaping would include Mexican blue palm, dwarf fan palm, shoestring acacia, thornless Texas honey mesquite, palo blanco, and desert museum palo verde. All landscaping would comply with Municipal Code Section 54.064.1 – Landscape and Water Conservation and Section

54.064.2 – Water Efficient Landscape Development Standards and would be drought tolerant.

Project lighting would include light sources typically used in commercial retail developments, including outdoor parking lot lighting for security and wayfinding, and lighting for order boards and service windows. Additionally, exterior lighting fixtures along the building frontage would provide illumination for the restaurant and would be shielded down to prevent light pollution.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 595 of 3061 Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2023.

Exhibit 6.1: Building 1 Elevations
The Greens Indio Project

Not to scale
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2023.

Exhibit 6.2: Building 2 Elevations
The Greens Indio Project

Not to scale
Source: CRHO Architects, 2023.

Exhibit 6.3: Chick-Fil-A (Building 3) Elevations
The Greens Indio Project

Source: Armet Davis Newlove & Associates, AIA Architects, 2023.

Exhibit 6.4: Dutch Bros. Coffee ( Building 4) Elevations The Greens Indio Project

Not to scale
SWA Architects. (2023). Landscape Plan.

Exhibit 7: Landscape Plan
The Greens Indio Project

The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 16
Parking and Circulation
According to Municipal Code Chapter 3.03 – Parking and Loading, Dine‐In and Take‐Out restaurants are required to provide 6 spaces per 1,000 sf ofstructure, plus 1 space per 150 sf of outdoor dining and seating areas over 450 sf. Drive‐thru only restaurants are required to provide one space per employee, plus two spaces for order pickup. Therefore, the proposed commercial uses would be required to provide 115 parking spaces, see Table 4: Project Parking Summary for a summary of City parking requirements and parking provided by each proposed land use. The Project proposes 240 vehicle parking spaces for the restaurant uses, which exceeds the Municipal Code requirements, as well as 80 spaces for the golf course parking lot. Loading and delivery trucks would temporarily park across parking spaces within the nearby parking area of each restaurant building. A dedicated loading spot would not be provided due to the low volume of deliveries associated with Project operations.

Table 4: Project Parking Summary
Building
Municipal Code Table 3.03.05‐1
Parking Requirements: Required Parking Proposed Parking Building 1
Greater of: 1 space/3 seats
or
6 spaces/1,000 sf, plus 1 per 150 sf of outdoor
dining and seating area over 450 sf
24 46
Building 2
Greater of: 1 space/3 seats
or
6 spaces/1,000 sf, plus 1 per 150 sf of outdoor
dining and seating area over 450 sf
43 116
Building 3:
(Chick‐Fil‐A)
Greater of: 1 space/3 seats
or
6 spaces/1,000 sf, plus 1 per 150 sf of outdoor
dining and seating area over 450 sf
32 64
Building 4:
(Dutch Bros
Coffee)
1 space/employee plus 2 spaces for pickup 16 14
Total 115 240

1. Proposed golf course parking will replace and improve the existing parking for the Indio Municipal Golf Course.

Source: Site Plan, Bickel Group Architecture, August 2023.

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from four driveways: two driveways (Driveway 1 and Driveway 2) on Jackson Street and two driveways (Driveway 3 and Driveway 4) on Avenue 42.

Driveway 1 on Jackson Street would provide full access. Driveway 2 on Jackson Street and Driveway 3 on Avenue 42 would provide only right‐in and right‐out access. Driveway 4 on Avenue 42 would serve as the primary entrance to the project site and allow full access. Table 5: Project Driveways summarizes the project site access.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 601 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 17
Table 5: Project Driveways
Driveway Location Movement Use
1 355 feet north of the intersection of
Jackson Street and Avenue 42 Full Access
Directs customers to surface lot, and
beginning of drive‐thru queue and
order boards
2 165 feet north of the intersection of
Jackson Street and Avenue 42
Right‐In/Right‐
Out Only
Directs customers to existing on‐site
land uses and to surface lot
3 295 feet east of the intersection of
Jackson Street and Avenue 42
Right‐In/Right‐
Out Only
Directs customers to surface lot, and
beginning of drive‐thru queue and
order boards
4 The north end of the intersection of
Golf Course Drive and Avenue 42 Full Access
Directs customers to surface parking
lot, Indio Municipal Golf Course, and
beginning of drive‐thru queue and
order boards
Sources: Site Plan, Bickel Group Architecture, August 2023; NearMaps Imagery. (January 2023). Accessed in June 2023.

As previously mentioned, the Project proposes a multi‐tenant commercial retail center totaling 13,620 sf which will include three drive‐thru restaurants, one sit‐down restaurant,surface parking, landscaping, off‐ site right‐of‐way improvements, and improvements to and relocation of the existing Indio Municipal Golf Course parking lot. Once internal to the project site, drive aisles would provide connectivity to the four commercial retail buildings and driveways. A description of each building's circulation is provided below:
 Building 1 would provide a drive‐thru lane which will begin at the northern portion of the building and wrap around the restaurant in a counter‐clockwise direction (Exhibit 5). Vehicles entering thru Driveway 1 would either park in the surface parking lot for walk‐in dining or mobile pick‐up orders or enter the drive‐thru queue.
 Building 2 would not include a drive‐thru lane but would have 117 parking spaces. Access to this building and parking would mainly come from Driveway 2 or 4. Building 2 can also be accessed from the Indio Municipal Golf Course from the rear patio.  Building 3 would provide a drive‐thru lane which would be accessed northwest of the building and wrap around the restaurant in a clockwise direction (Exhibit 5). Vehicles entering thru Driveway 2 or 3 would either park in the surface parking lot for walk‐in dining or mobile pick‐up orders or enter the drive‐thru queue.
 Building 4 would provide a drive‐thru lane which would be accessed northeast of the building and wrap around the restaurant in a counter‐clockwise direction (Exhibit 5). Vehicles entering thru Driveway 3 or 4 would either park in the surface parking lot for walk‐in dining or mobile pick‐up orders or enter the drive‐thru queue.
 The Indio Municipal Golf Course parking lot would be relocated east of its current location.

Existing access via Driveway 4 would remain.

Pedestrian access would be provided from existing sidewalks along Avenue 42 and Jackson Street. Right‐ of‐way improvements including construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and undergrounding of utilities north of the AutoZone to connect the existing sidewalk to create a continuous pedestrian path along Jackson Street. Pedestrian access to Buildings 1, 3, and 4 would be provided via internal sidewalks connecting to both Avenue 42 and Jackson Street.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 602 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 18
Public transit service is provided by the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), which provides bus transit services to the Coachella Valley. There are two bus stops within 300 feet of the site which are served by SunLine Route 8 along Jackson Street (west of the project site).

Utility Infrastructure
Project implementation would require the construction of new on‐site and off‐site utility infrastructure connections to serve the proposed commercial retail uses. These utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure with the finalsizing and design of on‐site facilitiesto occur during final building design and plan check.

Water and Sewer. The Indio Water Authority (IWA) provides and would continue to provide waterservice to the project site. A proposed potable water line would connect to an existing eight‐inch water mains currently providing water to the commercial development to the southwest. The existing eight‐inch water main connects to main lines along both Avenue 42 and Jackson Street. Additionally, a proposed eight‐inch water line connecting to a water main on Avenue 42 would bring additional potable water to the eastern portion of the site.

The Valley Sanitation District (VSD) maintains sewer service to the City. Upon Project implementation, VSD would continue to serve the Project. There is a four‐inch sewer line in Jackson Street which extends into the existing commercial development to the southwest as an eight‐inch sewer line. The Project would connect to the sewer main on within the commercial development via an eight‐inch pipe. The sewer pipe would extend east toward the parking lot and eventually connect to all four buildings. The Project would also install grease interceptors for the buildings.

Drainage and Water Quality. Regional drainage facilities are constructed, operated, and maintained by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Local drainage facilities are maintained by the City and generally convey runoff from local streets to the regional facilities. The Whitewater River Storm Channel is the main regional drainage facility for the City and drains into the Salton Sea. There is an existing City operated and maintained retention basin located approximately 663 feet to the north of the project site.

This basin extends along the entire northern boundary of the Indio Municipal Golf Course from Jackson Street to Calhoun Street. Existing storm drain lines run along Jackson Street. Properties to the northwest and southeast are identified asself‐retained developments.2 Under existing conditions,storm watersheet flows from the west end of the project site towards the golf course. The Project proposes four underground infiltration systems within the parking areas.

Dry Utilities and Solid Waste Management. The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) provides electricalservice and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gasservice to the area. Electrical power requirements of the Project would be met by extending a new backbone circuit from the IID Shadow Hills substation to the project site. There is existing conduit that extends from the Shadow Hills substation to the western border of the single‐family residential development on the north side of Avenue 42 across from Calhoun Street. Trenching for new electrical conduit and wire would occur on the north side of Avenue 42 behind the existing sidewalk from the single‐family development to the western boundary of the project site. The off‐site trenching would be approximately 1,250 feet from the western boundary of the single‐family residential development to the eastern terminus of the project site. No connections to the existing overhead utility lines would occur and the two power poles on Jackson Street would be placed underground, which includes trenching to install conduit and electrical cabling across Jackson Street. 2 City of Indio. (2019). City of Indio Master Drainage Plan – Figure 1‐6: City of Indio Master Drainage Plan Map ‐ North.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 603 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 19
Trenching and construction activities associated with these off‐site improvements are evaluated as a part of the overall Project. Natural gas service would be provided from existing underground utility lines.

Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services (Burrtec) currently provides solid waste collection and services to the City.

Construction Activities
Project construction is anticipated to take approximately eight months, commencing in January 2024.

Construction would occur in the following sequence:
 Site clearing;
 Site preparation;
 Grading. Minimal grading would be required, most earthwork would involve on‐site grading and installation of infrastructure within existing rights‐of‐way. All infrastructure (i.e., storm drain, water, wastewater, dry utilities, and street improvements) would be installed concurrent with grading;
 Building construction; and
 Paving, architectural coating, and landscaping.

Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
The discretionary and ministerial actions and/or approvals need for the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project requires CEQA compliance through the adoption of an IS/MND prior to approval of the Project. This IS/MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all actions associated with the approval of the Greens – Indio Project. In addition, this is the primary reference document for the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project.  General Plan Amendment. General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on that portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space to Regional Commercial.  Change of Zone. Approval of a change of zone to change the zoning on that portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space to Regional Commercial.  Design Review. Review and approval of Project plans by the City of Indio Planning Commission.  Permits. Grading, building, and sign permits.
 Any other permit or approval required by an agency with jurisdiction over the Project.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 604 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 20

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 605 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 21
Environmental Checklist and Discussion:

The following checklist evaluates the proposed Project’s potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the Project’s potential adverse impacts. When the Project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 606 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 22

1. AESTHETICS ‐‐ Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a State scenic highway?

c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
a. No Impact. The City of Indio General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) defines scenic vistas as views of scenic resources from public locations. Scenic viewpoints are typically regarded as singular vantage points that offer an unobstructed view of expansive visible landscape components. The project site issituated in the northern portion of the City with views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains which are located approximately 7.8 miles to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains located approximately 20 milesto the northwest, the Indio Hills located approximately 5.5 miles to the northeast, and the Santa Rosa Mountains located approximately 17 miles to the southwest3
. No vantage points are provided from or through the project site due to the flat topography on site. Per the Indio Unified Development Code (IUDC [zoning regulations]) Section

2.04.03 – Development Regulations for the RC zone, structures on the site would not exceed 3 stories or 65 feet. The proposed Project would allow for the construction and operation of three single‐story fast‐food restaurants with drive‐thrus and one single‐story restaurant. The Project would not exceed the height requirements set forth in the IUDC. The Project would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b. No Impact. There are no officially designated State scenic highways within the City or proximate to the project site. The nearest designated State scenic highway is Highway 74 located approximately

10.25 miles to the southwest of the project site and the nearest eligible State scenic highway is Highway 111 located approximately 10.5 miles to the southwest. Therefore since the project site is not within the vicinity of any designated or eligible State scenic highways, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources including trees, scenic rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 3 NearMaps. (May 2023). Aerial Imagery Data. Retrieved from: https://www.nearmap.com/us/en. Accessed June 20, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 607 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 23
c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the northeastern portion of the City. The City has various adopted General Plan and zoning designations containing visual policies which govern scenic quality. General Plan policies which reduce impacts to public views and scenic quality include Policy LU‐4.7, Policy CE‐4.2, Policy CE‐7.1, and Policy CE‐7.8, see Table 14:

General Plan Consistency Analysis for further discussion. Additionally, IUDC Section 2.04.03 Development Regulations regulates public views of development within non‐residential zones and contains the City’s non‐residential development standards. The project site is currently designated both RC and OS and proposes to change the land use and zoning designation of the entire site to the RC zone. The Project would not conflict with the applicable requirements in the General Plan or IUDC Section 2.04.03 for the RC land use, both of which govern scenic quality. Compliance with development standards would be ensured through the City’s review during application process and future review of building permits. Impacts would be lessthan significant and no mitigation isrequired. d. Less Than Significant Impact. Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare.

The Project would not use materials known to cause glare. The project site is within an urban environment with commercial uses which contain existing light sources such as street lighting, traffic lighting, and other sources including nighttime illumination of the neighboring Indio Municipal Golf Course in the evenings4
.

The proposed Project would introduce similar sources of light; however, the surrounding area contains multiple sources of illumination. The proposed Project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from the building interiors that would pass through windows, and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., outdoor patio, signage, street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and wayfinding lighting). The western portion of the City is located in Riverside County’s Mount Polomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area (MPNLPA) and per the General Plan, development within the City is subject to MPNLPA regulations. Nighttime lighting in the area has the potential to affect the Mount Palomar Observatory. However, the project site is located approximately 0.9 mile to the east of the MPNLPA boundary. Therefore, the MPNLPA policies would not be appliable to the Project.

The Project would also be required to comply with General Plan Policy CE‐7.8 and Policy LU‐3.5 which would ensure that new light sources associated with the Project are shielded and directed away from open viewing space areas and do not adversely affect day or nighttime views. Additionally, IUDC Section 3.02.11 sets regulations for outdoor lighting on all properties in the City to minimize light pollution, including “dark‐sky compliance”.5 Regulations include height restrictions and shielding requirements to minimize undesirable light into the night sky, and to protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of night lighting from gas or electric sources.

The proposed Project would include digital signs including the menu order boards, wall signage, directional signage (for drive‐thru), and monument signage which would produce additional lighting sources. All signage would be reviewed by the City Planning Department and Department of Building and Safety and would subject to the lighting standards and regulations in IUDC Section 3.02.11. The proposed signage associated with the Project would be consistent with typical signage used in commercial retail developments. Therefore, the proposed Project would create a new source of light 4 City of Indio. The Lights at Indio Golf Course. Retrieved from: https://www.indiogolf.com/. Accessed June 20, 2023. 5 IUDC Section 3.02.11.D: Dark‐Sky Compliance. In accordance with the International Dark‐Sky Association recommendations, the color temperature of outdoor lighting shall not exceed 3,000 Kelvins.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 608 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 24
or glare, but would not adversely affect day or nighttime viewsin the area. Impacts would be lessthan significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 609 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 25

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES –Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non‐
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non‐forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non‐forest
use?

Sources:
 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June, 2023.  State of California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Categories. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important‐Farmland‐Categories.aspx.

Accessed August 11, 2023.
 State of California Department of Conservation. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder Map.

Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/. Accessed August 11, 2023. a. No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are generally developed with commercial uses located to the north, south, and west; a golf course is located east of the project site. There are no agricultural or forestry resources located on or in close proximity to the project site. The State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Maps have designated the project site as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Urban and Built‐Up Land is defined as land developed at a density of at least 1 dwelling unit (du) per 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 610 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 26
to a 10‐acre parcel.6 Land usesinclude but are not limited to residential, industrial, office/commercial, institutional, and public administration. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on the project site or in the vicinity of the site.7 No farmland would be converted. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b. No Impact. A Williamson Act contract between local governments and private landowners restricts specified parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for a lower property tax assessment. The projectsite is not under a Williamson Act contract.8 The existing and proposed zoning designation for the project site do not allow for agriculture uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with agriculturalzoning designation or a Williamson contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c. ‐ d. No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. There are no forest or timberland resources on the project site or in the surrounding area. The existing and proposed zoning designations for the project site do not permit forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
e. No Impact. The project site and surrounding area do not include nor located in close proximity to agricultural uses or forest land. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of property from agricultural or timberland uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
6 State of California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Categories. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important‐Farmland‐Categories.aspx. Accessed August 11, 2023. 7 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June, 2023. 8 State of California Department of Conservation. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder Map. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/. Accessed August 11, 2023

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 611 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 27

3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non‐
attainment under an applicable federal
or State ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptorsto
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
Source: Air Quality Assessment (Kimley‐Horn, 2023). The report isincluded in thisInitial Study as Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment and summarized below.9
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) which includes all of Orange County and the non‐desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The Air Basin is approximately 6,600 square miles extending from the Pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains. The Air Basin is a coastal plain with broad valleys and low hills and a semi‐arid climate. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Air Basin.

In this Air Basin, SCAQMD prepares its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi‐agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The SCAQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022. The 2022 AQMP includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies, best management practices, co‐benefits from existing programs, incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve standards.
9 NOTE TO READER: The proposed Project consists of the construction of a ±13,620 sf multi‐tenant commercial retail center on approximately ±6.12 net acres located at the northeast corner of the Jackson Street at Avenue 42 intersection. The technical studies for the proposed Project which require the use of CalEEMod environmental modeling (Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment, Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, and Appendix D: Energy Data) were based upon a previous iteration of the project site plan which assumed a slightly smaller building area (±13,288 sf). The updated site plan shows an additional 332 sf to Building 3 (Chick‐Fil‐A), which resulted in an increase of 17 daily trips; see Appendix I: Focused Traffic Study and Traffic Memorandum. The resulting increase in daily trips would be considered negligible from an air quality perspective as the original modelling results were not close to any SCAQMD emissions thresholds and the change in daily trips would not result in any additional impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 612 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 28
The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies the following indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: A project will notresult in an increase in the frequency orseverity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs.
 Consistency Criterion No. 2: A project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs, or increments based on the years of the Project build‐out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 1, based on the air quality analysis conducted for the proposed Project, project‐related construction and operational activities would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, Project construction and operations would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed Project would not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards, and thus, would be consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts for cities and counties. SCAG’s growth forecasts are based on General Plans and included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Approximately 2.82 acres of the project site is designated Regional Commercial (RC) and zoned RC while the remaining 3.3 acresis designated as Parks and Open Space (OS) and zoned as OS. The Project requires both a General Plan amendment and rezone to designate the entirety of the project site RC.

Although land use changes are required, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth or unaccounted for growth in the General Plan or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMPs. Therefore, the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.

The proposed Project would not result in a long‐term impact on the regions ability to meet the standards for federal and State air quality. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP goals and policies.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s construction and operational emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Construction Emissions
Project construction activities would generate short‐term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the project site area include ozone‐precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction‐ generated emissions are short term and temporary, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 613 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 29
particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Project construction activities are estimated to last approximately eight months. Construction‐ generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB‐approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction‐ generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 6: Construction‐Related Emissions.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the vicinity of the project site.

Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions.

Table 6: Construction‐Related Emissions
Construction Year
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
2024 3.56 36.43 32.74 <1 6.44 3.53
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfacesthree times daily; coverstock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI‐A through XI‐E) were applied; see Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment.

Source: Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment.

As indicated in Table 6, Project construction emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds.

Additionally, Municipal Code Chapter 155 establishes standards for dust control that must be provided prior to any excavation, grading, or building construction. The proposed Project would abide by these regulations which are intended to minimize impacts as a result of grading in order to protect and preserve the public health, safety, general welfare, aesthetic value, and natural resources of the City. Therefore, the Project’s construction‐related impacts would be lessthan significant for all criteria pollutants. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and no mitigation is required.

Operational Emissions
Project generated operational emissions would be associated area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, and off‐road equipment. The operational emissionssources are described below. Area source emissions would be generated due to on‐site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting,

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 614 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 30
appliances, electronics, and cooking. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Long‐term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 7: Operational Emissions.

Table 7: Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)1
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 0.44 <0.1 0.59 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Emissions 0.02 0.39 0.32 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile Emissions 33.2 32.0 317 0.69 21.6 4.18
Mobile (On‐Site
Drive‐Thru)2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.73 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Emissions 33.6 32.4 318 3.42 21.6 4.21
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding.
2 On‐site drive‐thru idling emissions were calculated with emissions factors from EMFAC2021.

Source: Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment.

As indicated in Table 7, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational‐related impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project would generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large.

Localized Construction Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single‐family residences located approximately 150 feet (46 meters) southeast and 190 feet northwest of the project site.10 To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction. The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June of 2003 which assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project‐specific emissions.

CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment; see Table 10:

Equipment‐Specific Grading Rates in Appendix A. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Coachella Valley Monitoring Area (SRA 30) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look‐up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of

3.5 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1‐, 2‐, and 5‐ acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5‐acre threshold were used for this analysis.
10   Sensitive receptors for air quality are measured from the project site boundary to the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 615 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 31
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off‐site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on‐site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are single‐family residences located approximately 75 feet (23 meters) northeast of construction. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for 25 meters were interpolated and utilized in this analysis. As identified in Table 8: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, localized Project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 8: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)1
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition (2024) 15.60 16.00 0.86 0.81
Site Preparation (2024) 12.70 11.40 0.56 0.52
Grading (2024) 30.70 29.20 1.76 1.64
Trenching (2024) 1.35 1.49 <0.01 <0.01
Paving (2024) 6.44 8.26 0.31 0.29
Building Construction (2024) 11.20 11.90 0.49 0.42
Architectural Coating (2024) 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
Maximum emissions 30.70 29.20 1.76 1.64
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 3.5
acres at 25 meters)
149 984 10 6
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1 This table represents the worst‐case scenario and are based on peak earthwork volumes anticipated. 2 Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed Project consists of restaurant and fast‐food uses; therefore, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both on‐site stationary sources and 10 percent of the total mobile source emissions. As the nearest receptor is located approximately 150 feet (46 meters) from the project site, LSTs for 46 meters for SRA 30 were interpolated and utilized in this analysis. Although the project site is 6.3 acres, the 5‐acre LST threshold was conservatively assumed for the Project.

As identified in Table 9: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, daily emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore,significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational activities.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 616 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 32
Table 9: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
On‐Site and Mobile Source
Emissions1 3.2 31.7 2.2 0.42
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(5 acres at 46 meters)2
183 1601 6 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Conservatively assumes 10 percent of mobile emissions are on‐site.

2. SRA Zone 30 – Coachella Valley; 5‐acre area, 46 meters to receptor.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data for model outputs.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
Projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts. As previously discussed, the proposed Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 6 and Table 7).

Localized effects of on‐site Project emissions on nearby receptors were also found to be less than significant (refer to Table 8 and Table 9). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or national ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. Vehicle emissions cause CO exceedances, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. The Air Basin was re‐designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Further, the proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions would therefore be less than significant. As a result, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project is a commercial development and does not propose to include any objectionable odor inducing uses on site.

During construction‐related activities, the public may detect odors typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short‐

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 617 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 33
term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 618 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 34

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ‐‐Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Sources: Rocks Biological Consulting prepared a Biological and Aquatic Resources Constraints Assessment for the proposed Project. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix B: Biological and Aquatic Resources Constraints Analysis and summarized below.
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The Biological and Aquatic Constraints Assessment consists of a field survey which includes vegetation mapping of the project site and off‐site improvements area plus a 100‐foot buffer, a general biological survey, habitat assessments for special‐status species, and

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 619 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 35
a constraints‐level aquatic resource assessment. Field surveys were conducted on January 6, 2023 and August 18, 2023.

The project site is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Plan area. The CVMSHCP is a comprehensive regional plan that balances growth in the Coachella Valley with the requirements of federal and State endangered species laws.11 While the project site is located within CVMSHCP Plan area, it is not located within a designated Conservation area nor does it contain a Core Habitat, Other Conserved Habitat, Essential Ecological Process, or Biological Corridor or Linkages. Development would be subject to the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee because the project site occurs within the Plan Area and the City of Indio is a participating agency.

Sensitive Natural Communities
With the exception of the golf course surface parking lot, the projectsite is undeveloped and contains highly compacted disturbed habitat. Vegetation is limited to non‐native species (ornamental landscaping) such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata). Non‐native herbaceous species include puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Mediterranean grass (Schismus sp.), and nettle leaf goosefoot (Chenopodium murale).

With respect to the off‐site infrastructure improvement area to the east of the project site, this area includes non‐native and native habitats. The majority of the off‐site area has been disturbed by prior grading unrelated to the proposed Project. The off‐site area does support bush seepweed scrub (Suaeda nigra), disturbed allscale scrub (Atriplex polycarpa), and honey mesquite thickets (Prosopsis glandulosa). There is approximately 0.06 acre of bush seepweed/allscale and mesquite thickets in the off‐site area where trenching would occur associated with utility improvements. Vegetation communities with a State ranking of S1‐S3 are considered sensitive natural communities by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) covered under CEQA. Bush seepweed scrub and mesquite thickets are recognized by the CDFW as a sensitive natural communities. Allscale scrub is not recognized by the CDFW as a sensitive natural community.

The Project would be required to pay CVMSHCP Section 5.2.1.1, Local Development Mitigation Fees to mitigate impacts to the sensitive natural communities from construction of the off‐site improvements. However, since construction of the off‐site improvements would not be considered a Covered Activity located outside of and not directly adjacent to designated Conservation Areas, no additional regulatory measures are required for compliance with the CVMSHCP. However, the proposed Project would still have the potential to result in impacts to the sensitive natural communities during construction. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO‐1 requires the fencing of the area during construction to prevent potential impacts to bush seepweed scrub and mesquite thickets within the off‐site improvement footprint area.

Wildlife Species
No federally or state‐listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed during the field surveys and none have a moderate or high potential for occurrence. The western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a Covered Species under the CVMSHCP, has a moderate potential for occurrence on the project site. On‐site Mexican fan palms are suitable for roosting, and western yellow bats often forage in open, grassy areas with water features, such as those found at the adjacent golf course. Therefore, the proposed Project has the potential to result 11   Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at: https://cvmshcp.org/, accessed June 13, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 620 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 36
in impacts on the western yellow bat is if Mexican fan palms are removed or trimmed as a part of construction. If tree removal or trimming is necessary, MM BIO‐2 requires pre‐construction surveys for special‐status bat species to be conducted by a qualified biologists prior to construction. Potential impacts to the western yellow bat habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of MM BIO‐2 and payment of CVMSHCP mitigations fees. b) No Impact. The biological assessment found no evidence of aquatic resources potentially jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW on the project site; see Appendix B. Additionally, there are no Section 10 navigable waters of the U.S., United States Geologic Service National Hydrography Dataset blue line streams, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory aquatic features on the project site or on the off‐site infrastructure improvement area. There was no evidence of flows or drainage patterns (no soil moisture or saturation, no hydrophytic vegetation, and no ordinary water mark indicators or swale/drainage patterns) that were observed.

Bush seepweed scrub and Mexican palo verde were observed within the limits of disturbance at the western end of the off‐site improvement area. Both bush seepweed and Mexican palo verde are wetland indicator plant species per the USACE’ Arid West 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List. Although these plant species were observed, no wetland hydrology indicators were documented in association.

Therefore, these areas are not expected to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S. or State or associated wetland habitat jurisdictional by CDFW. Therefore, no impact on riparian habitat would result from the proposed Project and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. There are no federally protected wetlands on the projectsite or in itsimmediate vicinity.12 The project site does not contain any water resources (e.g., marsh, verna pools, coastal, etc.) nor would any of the proposed land uses potentially affect wetlands. The nearest body of water mapped by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory is the Freshwater Pond habitat located at the Indio Municipal Golf Course, approximately 0.06 mile northeast of the project site. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory classifies this habitat as Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, and Excavated (PUBHx). The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly impact the off‐ site Freshwater Pond habitat; see Appendix B. Therefore, no impact on wetlands would result from the proposed Project and no mitigation is required.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. A wildlife corridor is defined as a physical feature that links wildlife habitat, often consisting of native vegetation that joins two or more larger areas of similar wildlife habitat. Given the proximity to existing development, the project site would not be expected to be a part of or contain migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The biological assessment included a review of the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System database. The project site is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area as mapped through the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The project site is not located within a mapped wildlife corridor, and the nearest recognized corridor is approximately five miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident migratory fish or wildlife species.

While the projectsite is not a wildlife corridor, the Project would remove treesthat have the potential to support nesting migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). If habitat removal occurs during the breeding season (generally February 15 to August 31), the Project would be required to comply with MM BIO‐2, which requires a 12   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national‐wetlands‐ inventory/wetlands‐mapper, accessed June 9, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 621 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 37
pre‐construction nesting bird survey and construction scheduling to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the CFGC. Impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. e) No Impact. The Project would plant approximately 193 new trees along the perimeter and within the boundaries of the project site. Tree removal would occur either on private property or outside of a City parkway, median, or portion of a public street. Therefore, Municipal Code Section 98.09:

Protection of City Trees and Municipal Code Section 98.05: Street Trees are not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Less Than SignificantImpact. As previously mentioned, the projectsite islocated within the CVMSHCP Plan area. However, the site is not located within a designated Conservation area, nor does it contain a Core Habitat, Other Conserved Habitat, Essential Ecological Process, or Biological Corridor or Linkages. Two sensitive natural communities (bush seepweed scrub and mesquite thickets) occur within the off‐site improvement footprint. Construction of the off‐site improvements would occur within the boundaries of both sensitive natural communities and disturb the area. The Project would be required to pay CVMSHCP Section 5.2.1.1, Local Development Mitigation Fees associated with potential impactsto these sensitive natural communities. As a Covered Activity located outside of and not directly adjacent to designated Conservation Areas, no additional regulatory measures are required for compliance with the CVMSHCP. MM BIO‐1 would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to the sensitive natural communities from construction of the off‐site improvements. With payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fees and incorporation of MM BIO‐1, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO‐1 Sensitive Natural Communities. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologistshallsurvey the off‐site improvement area to determine the presence of any sensitive natural communities. If any sensitive natural communities are identified within the off‐site improvement area, the qualified biologist shall demarcate the limits of avoidance with construction fencing such that no work activity occurs within the fenced area containing the sensitive natural communities. This fencing shall remain in‐place until all construction within the off‐site improvement area is complete.

MM BIO‐2 Pre Construction Survey. Construction activities including removal or trimming of palm trees shall be avoided to limit potential impacts to roosting/foraging habitat for special‐ status bat species. If construction work including palm tree removal or trimming is required, then pre‐construction surveys for special‐status bat species shall be conducted by a qualified biologists no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to any palm tree removal or construction activities. Surveys shall be done during appropriate times of the day (e.g., dawn or dusk) to maximize detectability to determine if special‐status bat species are roosting near the work area. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection of suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors(e.g., Anabat, etc.). The type ofsurvey will depend on the condition of the potential roosting habitat. If no bats are found, then no further study is required. If bat species are found to be roosting within 100 feet of the project impact area, a 100‐foot buffer zone will be established around the active roost.

Construction activities shall not occur within the 100‐foot buffer zone. Construction‐ related lighting shall not occur within the 100‐foot buffer zone. Combustion equipment,

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 622 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 38
such as generators, pumps, and vehicles are not to be parked nor operated within the 100‐foot buffer zone. Construction personnel shall not enter the 100‐foot buffer zone. If the active roost is in a tree identified for removal, the tree removal shall be delayed until a qualified biologist determined the roost to no longer be active.

MM BIO‐3   Nesting Migratory Birds. During construction, grubbing, brushing, or tree removal shall be conducted outside of the State‐identified nesting season for migratory birds (i.e., typically February 1 through August 31), if possible. If construction activities cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a Pre‐construction Nesting Bird Survey within and adjacent to the Project shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to initiating construction activities. If active nests are found during the Pre‐construction Nesting Bird Survey, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during construction. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The size and location of all buffersones, if required,shall be based on the nesting species, nesting sage, nest location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance activity.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 623 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 39

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
Sources: The findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment are included as Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment to this Initial Study.
a) No Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, defines “historic resources” as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources(CRHR).13 CEQA allows local historic resource guidelines to serve as the California Register of Historical Resources criteria if enacted by local legislation to act as the equivalent of the State criteria. The project site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of an existing surface parking lot associated with the Indio Municipal Golf Course. Review of historical aerial maps depict that the project site was used for agriculture production in 1953 until the late 1970s, at which point in time a parking lot was developed in the southeastern portion of the site. The rest of the proposed development area has remained vacant, although images shows visible signs of surface soil modification, likely associated with previous grading activities.

On January 18, 2023, a records search request was submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside and the results are pending. The record search did not identify any historic resources on the project site (pending confirmation). Additionally, the site does not contain any buildings or structures with the exception of the golf course surface parking lot.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a change in the significance of a historical resource.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A records search request was submitted on January 18, 2023, to the EIC regarding the project site (results are pending). The cultural resources report noted that the project area is located entirely within the former footprint of Lake Cahuilla. As discussed above, the project site has remained vacant since the late 1970s except for the parking lot in the southeast corner.

The cultural resourcesreport concluded that due to existing development in the southeastern portion of the project site and soil modifications that have occurred across the remainder of the site, the likelihood of observing surficial archaeological resources is low. Additionally, given the project area is located within the footprint of the historic Lake Cahuilla, the likelihood of buried archaeological resources being present is also low. Notwithstanding, Project construction would involve excavation 13   California Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), §5024.1(g).

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 624 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 40
and grading activities. Therefore, while low, there is the potential for the Project to result in an significant impact to a previously unidentified archaeological resource. Therefore, implementation of MM CUL‐1 would be required. MM CUL‐1 requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and monitors, and outlines specific instructions if resources are found. If resources are found, the archaeologist would temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Project applicant.

Implementation of MM CUL‐1 would reduce any potential impactsto historic archaeologicalresources to a less than significant level. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation. c) Less Than Significant Impact. No dedicated cemeteries are on or near the project site. The disturbance of most Native American human remains is typically in association with prehistoric archaeological sites. As discussed previously, the project site low likelihood of containing cultural and archeological artifacts. Given the extent of on‐site disturbances from previous human activities, there is low potential for the Project’s ground‐disturbing activities to encounter human remains.

Notwithstanding, if previously unknown human remains are discovered during the Project’s ground‐ disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur.

If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5‐7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99. Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5‐7055 describe the general provisions for the treatment of human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during the excavation of a site. HSC Section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately.

As required by State law, the proposed Project would implement the procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would designate the “Most Likely Descendent” of the unearthed human remains. If excavation results in the discovery of human remains, the proposed Project would halt excavation near the find, and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC §§7050.5‐7055 and PRC §5097.98 and §5097.99), the Project’s potential impacts concerning human remains would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL‐1   Prior to issuance of any permit for ground‐disturbing activities, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Indio Community Development Department that a qualified professional archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior standards and an Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource monitor have been retained to supervise archaeological monitors during grading and excavation activities. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to the City’s acceptance. In the event that cultural resources (archaeological or historical) are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, the archaeologist shall request the contractor to immediately cease all earth‐disturbing activities within a 100‐foot radius of the area of discovery. The archaeologist and tribal monitor shall evaluate the significance of the finding and prescribe an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 625 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 41
Section15064.5 shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 626 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 42

6. ENERGY ‐‐ Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy of energy
efficiency?
Sources: Kimley‐Horn has conducted an energy analysis for the proposed Project. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix D: Energy Data and summarized below.14 a) Less Than Significant Impact.

Electricity: Imperial Irrigation District provides electricity to the project area. Power requirements of the Project would be met by extending a new backbone circuit from the IID Shadow Hills substation to the project site. The Project’s annual energy demand is projected to be 1,015,829 kWh.15 The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of an existing surface parking lot associated with the Indio Municipal Golf Course. Project implementation would introduce new commercial retail uses on the project site, and therefore would result in a permanent increase in electrical demand over existing conditions. Imperial Irrigation District would be able to serve the increased demand with the existing SoCalGas facilities. The County of Riversides annual energy usage is 16,767,235,877 kWh. The proposed Project represents an insignificant percent increase (0.0061 percent) compared to the overall demand in Riverside County. The Project’s increase in electricity demand would represent an insignificant percent increase compared to overall demand in Anaheim Public Utilities’ service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly affect its level of service.

In addition, the Project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Prior to building permit issuance, the City of Indio Building and Safety Division would review and verify that the Project plans comply with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required to adhere to CALGreen provisions, which establish planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.
14   NOTE TO READER: The proposed Project consists of the construction of a ±13,620 sf multi‐tenant commercial retail center on approximately ±6.12 net acres located at the northeast corner of the Jackson Street at Avenue 42 intersection. The technical studies for the proposed Project which require the use of CalEEMod environmental modeling (Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment, Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, and Appendix D: Energy Data) were based upon a previous iteration of the project site plan which assumed a slightly smaller building area (±13,288 sf). The updated site plan shows an additional 332 sf to Building 3 (Chick‐Fil‐A), which resulted in an increase of 17 daily trips; see Appendix I: Focused Traffic Study and Traffic Memorandum. The resulting increase in daily trips would be considered negligible from an energy perspective as the original modelling results were not close to the SCAQMD GHG emissions threshold and the change in daily trips would not result in any additional impacts. 15   Appendix 6‐1: Energy Data

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 627 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 43
Project development would not interfere with the achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to the Imperial Irrigation District and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end‐user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.

Natural Gas. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the project area. The CalEEMod modeling outputs estimate that the Project’s annual natural gas demand would total approximately 1,437,877 British thermal units (kBTU). SoCalGas would be able to serve the increased demand with the existing SoCalGas facilities. From 2018 to 2035, the California Gas and Electric Utilities anticipates that residential demand will decline from 236 billion cubic feet (bcf) to 186 bcf, while supplies remain constant at 3.775 bcf per day (bcfd) from 2015 through 2035.

Therefore, the Project’s natural gas demand would represent a nominal percentage of the overall demand in SoCalGas’ service area. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation.

Fuel. During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas‐ powered or diesel‐powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity‐powered equipment. Idling of in‐use off‐road heavy‐duty diesel vehicles in California are limited to five consecutive minutes per Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2449(d)(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

Construction activities would use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Based on the Project’s equipment and construction‐ related vehicle usage and emissions modeled in CalEEMod, the Project would use approximately 31,220 gallons of fuel (gasoline and diesel) during the entire construction period. In 2023, Riverside County is expected to use approximately 972,141,622 gallons of gasoline and diesel. The Project’s construction demand represents approximately 0.0032 percent of the annual fuel consumption in the County. Therefore, the fuel demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall consumption in the region (i.e., less than a fraction of one percent). Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such from SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use isreduced. There are no aspects of the proposed Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost‐savings potential in green building practices. The use of battery‐powered tools and equipment that do not rely on gas to operate are also becoming more

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 628 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 44
common.16 Impactsrelated to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not be significant.

During operations, energy consumption would be associated with visitor vehicle trips, and occasional trash/recycling collection and other delivery trucks/vehicles (e.g., FedEx, United Parcel Service [UPS], U.S. Postal Service [USPS]). The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on‐road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT calculated for the analysis. The total gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on‐road trips would be approximately 614,427 gallons per year and 102,559 gallons per year, respectively. Riverside County annual gasoline fuel use in 2023 is expected to be 715,317,878 gallons and diesel fuel use is 256,823,744 gallons.17 Expected Project operational use of gasoline would represent approximately 0.09 percent of current gasoline use and 0.04 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the projected energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. As such, proposed Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The proposed Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

In summary and as discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or fuel resources during Project construction or operation.

Impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would meet all applicable energy conservation standards. The Indio City Council adopted the Indio Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2019. The City of Indio CAP is a tool used to identify the sources of emissions in the community, including emissionsfrom energy. The City of Indio CAP also establishes citywide GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2040 which represent the City’s contribution to the State’s effort to reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Error! Reference source not found. in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis, the Project would be consistent with the City of Indio CAP.

Additionally, the City of Indio General Plan Conservation Element contains energy goals and policies applicable to the proposed Project, including Conservation Element Goal CE‐3, Policies 3.1 through

3.14 (encouraging energy‐efficient buildings ad vehicles that use energy from renewable sources).

Project design and operation would comply with the most current State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Compliance with the current Title 24 standards and CALGreen standards would ensure the proposed Project incorporates solar‐ready infrastructure, energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, water efficient fixtures, and other energy‐efficient features. Further, the 2022 CALGreen standards requires the recycling and/or salvaging of a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Adherence to the California Public Utilities Commission’s energy requirements, as well as the most current Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure conformance with the City of Indio General Plan Conservation Element goals and policies, as well as the State’s goal of promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
16 Jobsite, Construction’s Electric Future, June 11, 2018, available at https://jobsite.procore.com/construction‐s‐electric‐future, accessed June 16, 2023. 17 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2017.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 629 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 45

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ‐‐ Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on‐ or off‐ site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating direct or
indirectsubstantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource of site or unique
geologic feature?
Sources: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Project. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and is summarized below.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 630 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 46
ai)   No Impact. According to the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Map, there are no known earthquake faults located near or known to traverse the project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly, or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation isrequired. aii)  Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City islocated in a region of historic seismic activity.

The nearest fault zone to the project site is the South Branch San Andreas Fault which is located approximately 0.9‐mile to the east. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation analyzed various geologic and seismic hazards based on site‐specific parameters, including strong seismic ground shaking, shrinkage, and subsidence; see Appendix E. Section 9.2 of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation makes recommendations concerning seismic design parameters that are in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). Further, the Project would be subject to compliance with MM GEO‐1, which requires the City to review all Project plans, grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Code requirements. Compliance with MM GEO‐1 would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., Municipal Code and CBC), the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations, and implementation of MM GEO‐1, the Project’s potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
aiii) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake‐ induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburdened pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. Liquefaction typically occurs below water tables, however after liquefaction occurs, the liquefied soil/water matrix can propagate upward into overlying non‐ saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. The projectsite is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction. Soils underlying the project site consist of loose to dense silty sand to hard sandy silty with various amounts of clay. Additionally, historic groundwater are estimated at 35 feet below ground surface; therefore, seismic‐induced (“dry sand”) settlements are estimated to be minimal.

The Indio Community Development Department’s Building and Safety Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Municipal Code and CBC, and the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., Municipal Code and CBC), the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations, and MM GEO‐1, the Project’s impacts involving substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant. aiv) No Impact. Landslides can occur if ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall disturb areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils. The project site is relatively flat and is not located within an Earthquake‐ Induced Landslide Zone. Further, the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation noted that there was no evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at the project site. Therefore, the potential for landslides is negligible. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, and cobbles derived from erosion of Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the San Jacinto Mountains. During boring tests, the alluvium was found to consist of loose to very dense silty sand

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 631 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 47
and stiff to hard sandy silt with various amounts of clay. No significant fill soils were found during the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation but fill soils may be present between test locations. Given the site’s topography, geology, and historic uses, the potential for loss of topsoil is low. During construction, the proposed Project would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 155: Soil Erosion and Municipal Code Chapter 162:

Grading. Municipal Code Chapter 155 establishes standards for dust control that must be provided prior to any excavation, grading, or building construction. These regulations are intended to minimize impacts as a result of grading in order to protect and preserve the public health, safety, general welfare, aesthetic value, and natural resources of the City. Municipal Code Chapter 162 requires that an erosion control plan/system be prepared before any grading work which may affect downstream properties is conducted in accordance with good engineering practice, thereby reducing to a minimum the hazards and damage to public and private property.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit); see Threshold 4.10a. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion‐control and sediment‐control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction‐related pollutants. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., the Municipal Code and Construction General Permit), the Project’s potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site would not be subject to seismically induced liquefaction (see Threshold 4.7aiii above) with mitigation or landslides (see Threshold 4.7aiv).

The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation also reported that the likelihood of lateral spreading would be low due to the site’s flat topography. Subsidence occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. No large‐scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring, or planned, at the project site or in the general vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the likelihood of subsidence is considered low.

Sections 9.1 through 9.16 of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation make preliminary recommendations concerning design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The Indio Building and Safety Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Municipal Code and CBC, and the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations, including those concerning subsidence.

Further, the Project would be subject to compliance with MM GEO‐1, which requiresthe City to review all Project plans, grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Code requirements. Compliance with MM GEO‐1 would reduce potential impacts related to subsidence to a less than significant level.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework (i.e., Municipal Code and CBC), MM GEO‐1, and the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations, the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable and potentially result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 632 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 48
d)   Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation did not evaluate expansion potential in the soil types found on the project site. However, the Indio General Plan EIR notes that soil types in the City are predominantly sand, sandy loam soils, which generally do not pose expansive soil risks.18 As previously discussed, Sections 9.1 through 9.16 of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Evaluation make preliminary recommendations concerning design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading. The Indio Building and Safety Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Municipal Code and CBC, and the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations, including those concerning expansive soils. Following compliance with standard engineering practices and the established regulatory framework (i.e., Municipal Code and CBC) the Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property concerning expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) No Impact. There is existing sewer infrastructure in the project vicinity available to serve the proposed Project. The Project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal and would not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. The City is located in the Coachella Valley, a large northwest to southeast trending basin that isthe result of the San Andreas Faultsystem in California.19 Sedimentary deposition has been slowly filling this basin since the Miocene Epoch (23.03 to 5.332 million years ago). The Coachella Valley is the northwest extension of the Salton Trough, a major geological feature in the region spanning from the Banning pass south to the Gulf of California in Mexico and contains deposits that may support paleontological resources.

According to the General Plan EIR, Figure 4.5‐3: Sensitive Paleontological Resources Map20 in the Indio General Plan EIR, the project site is in a location of high potential for paleontological sensitivity.

Therefore, there is a possibility that Project construction activities may affect unidentified paleontological resources. Therefore, the implementation of MM GEO‐2, which addresses the actions to be taken should paleontological resources be found, is required to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Implementation of MM GEO‐2 would ensure that any unanticipated encounter of paleontological resources during ground disturbing activities would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO‐1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommendations.

MM GEO‐2 Priorto the issuance of the first grading permit or permitfor ground disturbance activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Indio Community Development Department’s Building and Safety Division that the Applicant has retained a qualified 18   City of Indio, 2019, Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Indio General Plan Update, Page 4.6‐6. Available at:
https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/924/637874293008870000, accessed June 16, 2023. 19   City of Indio, 2019, Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Indio General Plan Update, Figure 4.5‐3: Sensitive Paleontological Resources. Available at: https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/924/637874293008870000, accessed June 16, 2023. 20   City of Indio, 2019, Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Indio General Plan Update, Figure 4.5‐3: Sensitive Paleontological Resources. Page 4.5‐18. Available at: https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/924/637874293008870000, accessed June 16, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 633 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 49
professional paleontologist. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to City acceptance. In the event that paleontological are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth‐disturbing activities within a 100‐foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified professionalshall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, the Applicant shall follow salvage operation requirements pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. After the Applicant has appropriately avoided or mitigated the find, work in the area may resume.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 634 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 50

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS –
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

Sources: Kimley‐Horn has conducted a greenhouse gas emissions assessment for the proposed Project.

The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment and summarized below.21
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project would have a potentially significant impact if it generates greenhouse (GHG) emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

GHG Thresholds
In December of 2008, SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr that applies to industrial uses’ stationary sources and 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for residential or commercial projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No. 08‐35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staffreport and draft interim guidance document that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a tiered approach.

It wasrecommended by SCAQMD staff that a project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following “tiered” tests:
 Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact.
 Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals.  Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. (10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial Projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial Projects)
21   NOTE TO READER: The proposed Project consists of the construction of a ±13,620 sf multi‐tenant commercial retail center on approximately ±6.12 net acres located at the northeast corner of the Jackson Street at Avenue 42 intersection. The technical studies for the proposed Project which require the use of CalEEMod environmental modeling (Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment, Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, and Appendix D: Energy Data) were based upon a previous iteration of the project site plan which assumed a slightly smaller building area (±13,288 sf). The updated site plan shows an additional 332 sf to Building 3 (Chick‐Fil‐A), which resulted in an increase of 17 daily trips; see Appendix I: Focused Traffic Study and Traffic Memorandum. The resulting increase in daily trips would be considered negligible from a GHG emissions perspective and the change in square footage and daily trips would not result in any additional impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 635 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 51
The Indio City Council adopted the Indio Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2019. The CAP serves as the programmatic tiering document for purposes of CEQA analysis of GHG emissions within the City.

The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Project construction and operations would result in direct GHG emissions. Direct project‐related GHG emissions include those from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect emissions include those from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 10: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 10: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year1
Proposed Emissions
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 10
Area Source <1
Energy 100
Mobile 5,840
Waste 47
Water and Wastewater 6
Refrigeration 1
Proposed Total 6,004
Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for model outputs.

As depicted in the table, the Project would generate approximately 6,004 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. As shown in Table 10, the proposed Project does not comply with Tier 3 threshold because emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e annual threshold for commercial projects. However, as discussed below and depicted in Table 12: Consistency with the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist, the Project would be in compliance with Tier 2 through consistency with the City of Indio CAP. Therefore, the Project complies with the City’s CAP and impacts concerning direct and indirect GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal Regional Transportation /Sustainable Communities Strategies Plan, California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan, and the City of Indio CAP.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is a long‐range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light‐duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post‐2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5‐03‐05 and B‐30‐15;see Appendix F for additional information on the executive orders.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 636 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 52
GHG emissions resulting from development‐related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post‐2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is addressed in Table 11: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency. As shown in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS and would not conflict with implementation of the stated goals.

Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would benefit from implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/ renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post‐2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

Table 11: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness.

Not
applicable.

This is not a project‐specific policy and is
therefore not applicable. However, the
project site is bordered by development.

Development of the site would contribute
to regional economic prosperity.

GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation system.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 4: Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices
within the transportation
system.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.

GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality.

Consistent. The project site is located within a
developed area near existing roadways.

The location of the Project within a
developed area would reduce trip lengths,
which would reduce GHG and air quality
emissions.

GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. As discussed in the Air Quality Assessment, the Project would not exceed thresholds or
result in health impacts. The Project would
not conflict with the surrounding
community’s ability to access healthy food
or parks. In addition, the Project would be
required to comply with the City’s General
Plan and CAP ensuring that impacts to
sensitive receptors would be minimized to
the extent feasible.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 637 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 53
Table 11: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.

Not
applicable.

This is not a project‐specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.

GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data‐driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel.

Not
applicable.

This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.

However, the Project is located in a
developed area in proximity to an existing
freeway. The location of the Project within
a developed area would reduce trip
lengths, which would result in more
efficient travel.

GOAL 9: Encourage development of
diverse housing types in areas
that are supported by multiple
transportation options.

Not
applicable.

The Project does not include housing.

Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural
and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats.

Not
applicable.

The project site is not located on
agricultural or habitat lands.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020.

California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
The California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The 2022 Scoping Plan achieves the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero‐emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors; see Appendix F for additional information regarding statewide strategies for reducing GHGs in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

As shown in Table 10, approximately 99 percent of the Project’s GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 95 percent of the Project’s total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures discussed in the regulatory setting section in Appendix F, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. The following State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project:
 CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation: Adopted in June 2020, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero‐emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero‐emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation acceleratesthe transition of zero‐emission medium‐and heavy‐duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.  Executive Order N‐79‐20: Executive Order N‐79‐20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off‐road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero‐emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy‐duty vehicles will be zero‐emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 638 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 54
vehicles and trucks, medium‐and heavy‐duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off‐ road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.”
 CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy: CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks.  CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan: The Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near‐zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.  CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement: CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories.

While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) or State efforts to improve system efficiency. Compliance with applicable State standards (e.g., continuation of the Cap‐and‐Trade regulation; CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and Advanced Clean Truck Regulation; Executive Order N‐79‐20; SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements that require 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045, etc.) would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, including the 2022 Scoping Plan. It should also be noted that the Project would not convert any Natural and Working Lands (NWL) and/or decrease the urban forest carbon stock in the State, which are areas of emphasis in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Project emissions would be indirectly reduced through the implementation of various 2022 Scoping Plan measures, such as the low carbon fuel standard, vehicle emissions standards, building energy efficiency standards, market‐based mechanisms (such as the cap‐and‐trade program) and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s recommended measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

As such, impacts related to consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would be less than significant.

Consistency with the City of Indio CAP
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows projects to tier from the programmatic GHG emissions analysis contained in a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan by identifying those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the Project. As discussed previously, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). As a result, this analysis tiers from the GHG emissions analysis conducted for the City’s CAP.

Prior to Project approval, the Applicant is required to complete the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with the City of Indio CAP, which is provided in Table 12: Consistency with the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist. As shown in Table 12, the Project would comply with all applicable Project design features included in the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist. As such, impacts related to consistency with the CAP would be less than significant.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 639 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 55
Table 12: Consistency with the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will the project include bicycle facilities
(e.g., bike lanes, parking)?
Yes Bicycle facilities in the area include Avenue 42, which provides Class II bike lanes with striping to separate the vehicle and bike travel way. On Jackson Street, bicyclists either share the traffic lane or ride on the sidewalk.

Additionally, bicycle storage for employees and visitors would be provided on site, as well as bicycle access on the driveways.

Will the project include sidewalks along all
roadways?
Yes The proposed Project is in a mixed‐use area. There is currently pedestrian access to/from the project site via sidewalks along Avenue 42 and Jackson Street. On
Jackson Street, the sidewalk would be continued along
the project site frontage from its existing terminus at the AutoZone.

Will the project support bike sharing or
rental programs?
N/A The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development and would not necessitate bike sharing or
rental programs; therefore, this design feature is not
applicable. However, there are existing bicycle facilities in the area on Avenue 42 which provides Class II bike
lanes with buffered striping to separate vehicle and bike travel. Additionally, the proposed Project would include 10 bicycle parking spaces.

Will there be transit stop within ¼ mile of
the project?
Yes The project site is located within ¼ mile of SunLine Transit Agency (SLTA) bus stops along Jackson Street
and Avenue 42.

Will the install provide traffic calming
elements?
N/A The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development and would not necessitate traffic calming
elements; therefore, this project design feature is not applicable.

Will the project’s pedestrian and/or
bicycle infrastructure connect to the
external network?
Yes There is currently pedestrian access to/from the project site via sidewalks along Jackson Street and Avenue 42.

Bicycle facilities in the area include Avenue 42 which
provides Class II bike lanes with buffered striping to
separate vehicle and bike travel. On Jackson Street,
bicyclists either share the traffic lane or ride on the sidewalk. The proposed Project would include 10 bicycle parking spaces.

If the project provides streets, will the
streets meet the City’s Complete Streets
standards?
N/A The Project does not provide streets; therefore, this project design feature is not applicable.

Will the project include high‐density
housing? A range of housing types?
Affordable housing? Be mixed‐use?
No The Project proposes a commercial retail space that
includes the following: a 3,750 sf fast food restaurant with drive‐thru; a 980 sf coffee shop with drive‐thru; a 3,996 sf fast food restaurant with drive‐thru; and a
4,894 sf high turnover sit down restaurant. No housing
is proposed.

Will the project provide shared or reduced
parking
Yes The proposed Project would create approximately 240 new parking spaces. The proposed parking stalls would

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 640 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 56
Table 12: Consistency with the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
be shared by existing retail uses located adjacent to the proposed uses.

Will the project be designed to maximize
solar orientation?
Yes The Project would comply with the latest Title 24
Building Code Energy Efficiency standards for
commercial uses. The Project would also implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the Project to comply with
various CALGreen requirements. The Project would also
include the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays on‐site.

Will the buildings be designed to
incorporate passive solar design?
Will the project include transportation
demand management measures?
N/A The proposed Project is a local serving retail
development with no single on‐site use exceeding
50,000 sf. The Project would not have significant VMT
impacts per the Riverside County Transportation
Guidelines and therefore would not necessitate any
TDM programs to reduce the vehicle trips and vehicle
miles generated by the Project. However, the Project
includes connections to existing bicycle lane facilities and bicycle parking. As discussed above, the proposed
Project would include 10 bicycle parking spaces as well as access for bicyclists and pedestrian to access the site.

This would promote safety and encourage employees to
use alternative sources of transportation.

Will the project provide electric vehicle
charging stations?
Yes The Project would install EV chargers on site in
compliance with CALGreen Section 5.106.5.3.3.

Will the project pre‐wire for electric
vehicle charging stations to be added at a
later date?
Will the project use all electric appliances
and HVAC systems?
Yes The Project would be constructed in accordance with the latest California Building Code and green building
Will regulations/CALGreen. the project seek LEED or similar green building certification?
Will the project increase the number of
trees on site?
Yes The Project would plant new trees around the perimeter and within the project site. The number of trees would
exceed the number of trees found on the site.

Will renewable energy systems be
installed as part of the project?
Yes The Project would be required to install a PV solar array in accordance with the Title 24 Building Code Energy
Efficiency standards. Additionally, the Project would
implement required green building strategies through
existing regulation that requires the Project to comply with various CALGreen requirements to reduce energy
use.

Will construction waste and debris be
diverted from the landfill consistent with
City requirements?
Yes The Project would be required to comply with Indio
Municipal Code Section 51.47: Recycling and Diversion
of Debris of Construction and Demolitions and
CALGreen with regard to construction waste diversion.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 641 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 57
Table 12: Consistency with the Climate‐Ready Development Review Checklist Project Design Feature Yes/No Explanation
Will the project collect recycling?
Compost?
Yes The Project would comply with the City’s Mandatory
Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance (Chapter
51A of the Indio Municipal Code).

Will the project use low‐water or drought
tolerant species for landscaping?
Yes The Project would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Development Standards Ordinance (Section
Will 54.064.2 of the Indio Municipal Code). the project use smart irrigation? Will rainwater be captured on site?
Will the project be connected to the
recycled water system? Does the project
use recycled water?
N/A The project site is not located near recycled water facilities (refer to the 2020 Coachella Valley Reginal
Urban Water Management Plan); therefore, this project
design feature is not applicable.

Will the project use low‐impact
development practices?
Yes The Project would comply with the City’s Landscape and Water Conservation Ordinance (Section 54.064.1 of the
Indio Municipal Code).

Source: City of Indio, City of Indio Climate Action Plan: Appendix A, September 2019.

The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of GHGs and would not impede implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan. Additionally, as shown in Table 6 and Table 7, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Connect SoCal Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategies Plan and the City of Indio CAP.

Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 642 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 58

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS –Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditionsinvolving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one‐quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
Sources: GeoEngineers has conducted a Revised Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Project.

The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and summarized below.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials, such as fuels, solvents, degreasers, and paints.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 643 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 59
The use of these materials during Project construction would be short term and would occur in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used during construction in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Examples of such activities include fueling and servicing construction equipment and applying paints and other coatings. Project construction would be temporary, and existing regulations of several agencies would govern these activities. Construction activities would be subject to compliance with relevant regulatory requirements and restrictions concerning the transport, use, or disposal to prevent a significant hazard to the public or environment.

The primary regulatory requirements include South Coast AQMD Rule 1166 (volatile organic compound emissions) and Rule 1466 (fugitive dust‐toxic air contaminants).

The Project proposes the construction of a multi‐tenant commercial retail center consisting of three drive‐thru fast food restaurants and one sit‐down restaurant. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would emit hazardous emissions or involve hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. However, the proposed Project could involve the transport and use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the property, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. The types and quantities of materials associated with routine maintenance would not be significant enough to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. All potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. No uses or activities are proposed that would result in the use or discharge of unregulated hazardous materials and/or substances, or would transport, use, or dispose of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Therefore, no significant impacts related to exposing the public or the environment to significant hazards through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped with the exception of an existing surface parking lot associated with the Indio Municipal Golf Course. The Revised Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) reported no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or controlled RECs in association with the project site. Additionally, the site has never been developed; therefore, potential presence for asbestos‐containing materials or lead‐based paints are considered low. Review of State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker and DTSC Envirostor database did not identify any hazardous clean up cases on or near the project site.22,23 Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and programs address the storage, use, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials (such as paints and solvents) that the Applicant might use during construction. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would reduce the risk of hazardous material incidents during construction to a less than significant level. Therefore, Project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Project would not generate or facilitate the generation of hazardous materials. The proposed Project could involve the transport and use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the property, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. However, the types and quantities of materials used and stored on site would not be of 22   DTSC, Envirostor Database, Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=2219+west+orange+ave+anaheim, Accessed June 16, 2023.
23   State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=2219+Orange+Ave+Anaheim, Accessed June 16, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 644 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 60
a significant quantity to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. Additionally, this analysis assumes that the use, storage, and transport of routinely used hazardous materials would occur in compliance with the established regulatory framework. Project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the project site is the Richard R. Oliphant Elementary School at 41633 Gore Street, approximately 0.7 mile to the northwest.24 Since the Project proposes a multi‐tenant commercial retail center consisting of three drive‐thru fast food restaurants and one sit‐down restaurant, the proposed Project does not include uses that could potentially generate hazardous materials in significant quantities that would have an impact on surrounding schools. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known asthe Cortese List, maintained by the DTSC and State Water Resources Control Board. The Cortese list contains hazardous waste and substance sites including public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination; sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release; and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration.

The Cortese list also includes hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action; historic Cortese sites; and sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program.

Government Code Section 65962.5 refersto the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The Phase I ESA conducted a review of databases and indicated that the project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled under Government Code Section 65962.5; see Appendix G.
25 Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) No Impact. The airports located nearest to the project site are the Crown Aero Bermuda Dunes Airport, a public use strip, located approximately 2.9 miles to the west and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (formerly Thermal Airport) located approximately 8.2 miles to the southeast. The project site is not within the Airport Influence Areas of either airport. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or residing at the project site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) No Impact. The Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project construction activities would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways. Temporary construction activities would not impede road use for emergencies or emergency response vehicle access.

The City has developed an emergency operations plan to guide the City’s response to emergency situations (City of Indio 2007). The plan includes checklists related to considerations for specific types of disasters or emergencies such as wildfire/structural fire, hazardous materials release, earthquake, flood, and terrorism/bioterrorism. Project development would not result in changes to the City’s circulation patterns or emergency access routes. The General Plan EIR notes that there are no 24   Desert Sands Unified School District, My School Location. Available at: https://www.myschoollocation.com/desertsandsusd/, accessed on June 16, 2023.   25   California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List ‐ Site Cleanup (Cortese List).

Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed: June 16, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 645 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 61
established emergency evacuation routes in the City of Indio.26 Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. CAL FIRE ranks fire threats based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The rankingsinclude no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threats. According to CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area.27 The project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area. The project site is in a developed urban area, and it is not adjacent to or near any wildland areas. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
26   City of Indio, 2019, Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Indio General Plan Update, Page 4.8‐23. Available at:
https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/924/637874293008870000, accessed June 16, 2023. 27   California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 16, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 646 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 62

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ‐‐
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐
site?
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on‐ or off‐ site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on‐ or
off‐site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
plan orsustainable groundwater
management plan?

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 6.12 acres, of which a majority of the project site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of an existing surface parking lot associated with the Indio Municipal Golf Course. The Project proposes a multi‐tenant commercial retail center with surface parking, landscaping, and off‐site improvements. The existing paving within the project

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 647 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 63
site limits would be vacated and demolished to allow for the new development. The existing AutoZone, Arco Gas station and convenience store to the west are not within the project limits and would remain adjacent to the project site.

During construction and life of the Project (operation), the proposed development would be required to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), NPDES, State, and local regulations designed to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground water quality. As discussed below, this is achieved through the preparation of applicable compliance plans and permit registration documents that must obtain agency approval prior to issuance of a grading permit, ground disturbance, and operation.

During the period of construction, the Project proponent must comply with the State’s most current NPDES Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by 2010‐0014‐DWQ and 2012‐ 006‐DWQ. Compliance with the Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a project‐specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), designed to prevent potential adverse impacts to surface water quality, including erosion and siltation, during the period of construction. The NOI and SWPPP must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for approval and permit coverage. The SWPPP is a site‐specific compliance plan required to identify a strategy of storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with Section XIV (SWPPP Requirements) of the Construction General Permit. Storm water BMPs refer to a schedule of activities, prohibitions, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to avoid, eliminate, or reduce the pollution of the receiving waters, primarily focused on preventing erosion, siltation, illicit discharge, and contamination. The SWPPP would include such measures as erosion control, sediment control, storm drain inlet protection, proper waste management and pollution prevention. The SWPPP must be prepared concurrently with final engineering design and undergo City review in addition to the State permit process. The City’s review process ensures that all responsible parties and compliance plan elements are properly demonstrated. Compliance of this plan during construction would be regulated and enforced as part of the local agency site inspection protocols.

During the life of the Project (operation), the Project proponent isrequired to implement an approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. A Preliminary WQMP has been prepared for this Project in order to meet the City’s engineering approval requirements. The WQMP takes into account the existing and proposed drainage conditions based on the project specific hydrology report and improvement plans (precise grading).

The Project does not require and would not result in the construction of new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. It is assumed that sheet flows would be directed towards Jackson Street and further directed to the existing City operated and maintained retention basin located approximately 663 feet to the north of the project site, the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the development. As a result, Project runoff would be completely contained within the nearby facilities and would not result in discharge capable of resulting in downstream hydrologic modifications or a contribution of urban runoff pollutants that would affect surface water quality. As a requirement, all elements of the WQMP implementation, including maintenance, must be documented during the life of the Project. The Project’s engineering plans, hydrology report, and WQMP would be subject to City review and approval to validate MS4 compliance.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 648 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 64
In summary, during construction and operation, Project implementation would require plan‐based compliance with the CWA, NPDES, and local regulationsto prevent impactsto water quality standards and the beneficial uses assigned to local receiving waters. The proposed storm drain system and retention facilities would ensure that the stormwater capture and management strategy for Project runoff would not result in waste discharge violations and therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The entire City of Indio, inclusive of the project site, are located within the domestic water service area of Indio Water Authority (IWA), which covers approximately 38 square miles, with 20 groundwater wells, 7 storage reservoirs, 1 large main pressure zone, and 2 smaller development‐based zones. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is the primary groundwater source for the region’s domestic water purveyors, including IWA. According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has an approximate storage capacity of 39.2 million acre‐feet (AF) of water within the upper 1,000 feet and is divided into foursubbasins: Indio, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and San Gorgonio. The project site is specifically underlain by the Indio Subbasin, which is also known as the Whitewater River Subbasin. DWR has estimated that the Indio Subbasin contains approximately 29.8 million AF of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface, representing approximately 76 percent of the total groundwater in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.

In 2019, IWA was among the six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley to collaborate on the preparation of the 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2020 RUWMP) with regional and individual agency content. The 2020 RUWMP describes the region’s water supplies and anticipated demands through 2045, along with each agency’s programs to encourage efficient water use. According to the RUWMP, 2020 water use in the service area was 331 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) or 99,842 acre feet per year (AFY).28 IWA does not maintain any standard unit demand factors for specific types of land uses. IWA forecasts that in 2025, the service areas Water Demand would increase from 19,880 AFY in 2020 to 24,792 AFY. Asseen in Table 13: 2025 IWA Forecast Water Demands, water demand would be 3.8 AFY or 1,232,350.8 gallons per person per year (GPY).

Table 13: 2025 IWA Forecast Water Demands
2025 AFY
2025 Population
Served by IWA
2025 AFY per
Person per Day
2025 Gallons per
Person per Year1
24,792 93,762 3.8 1,232,350.8

1. 1 AFY = 325,851 gallons
Source: Desert Sands Unified School District. (2022). Fee Justification Report for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development.

The Project would increase water demand. The Project’s four restaurant uses are expected to have 210 employees; based on 3.8 AFY per employee per day, the projected water demand for the site would be 798 AFY.

In June 2021, IWA’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) was prepared to outline each agency’s actions that could be taken during a water shortage to reduce demands. According to the WSCP, drought conditions are not expected to affect the region’s Colorado River water supply due to the agency’s high priority allocation. Colorado River water is not the primary source of urban watersupply since it is used for groundwater replenishment and non‐potable uses. If a reduction in Colorado River water supply occurred, local agencies would initially reduce deliveries to groundwater replenishment 28   Coachella Valley Water District. (2020). 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 4‐14. Accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 649 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 65
projects. Historically, drought conditions in the Sierra Nevada have affected the State Water Project (SWP) water allocation and reduced the exchange water received by local agencies. Since the SWP exchange water is used for replenishment of the groundwater basin and is not a directsource of urban water supply, water use restrictions due to drought involving the SWP water supply would likely be implemented only as a result of a prolonged drought. During dry periods when less imported water is available, groundwater production is expected to exceed the amount of recharge, and the volume in storage would be reduced. However, these reductions can be reversed in years when additional imported water is available. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is deemed to be a large basin which provides a buffer during dry periods, thus allowing the agenciesto develop long‐term plans and programs to manage regional water supplies.

Local water purveyors collaborate with the operation and maintenance of three replenishment facilities serving the Indio Subbasin: Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility, the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, and the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility. Artificial replenishment, or recharge, is recognized by the water districts as one of the most effective methods available for preserving local groundwater supplies, reversing aquifer overdraft and meeting demand by domestic consumers. Local agencies are known to have percolated over 650 billion gallons of water back into the aquifer. In the central part of the Coachella Valley, groundwater recharge is provided by the recently constructed first phase of the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility, operated by CVWD. According to the CVWD web site, this facility is expected to add up to 25,000 AF of Colorado River water annually into the aquifer. Combined with water conservation and efficiency requirements, individual development projects can contribute to groundwater sustainability by implementing the required stormwater runoff retention and infiltration facilities.

Although the Project includes a General Plan amendment and zone change from OS to RC, the proposed development is deemed consistent with the City’s General Plan. The established groundwater replenishment facilities described above for the Indio Subbasin are not located near the project site. Therefore, from the aspect of land use and location, Project implementation is not deemed to be in conflict with any existing or planned groundwater recharge facility or associated infrastructure.

The proposed facilities include a multi‐tenant commercial retail center totaling 13,620 sf, surface parking, landscaping, and off‐site improvements. The Project would increase water demand by 798 AFY. Restroom facilities and associated water uses are expected to be limited to the commercial spaces. The proposed operation would be expected to implement water conservation measures, including the use of low‐flow plumbing fixtures, drought‐tolerant (native) outdoor landscaping, and water‐efficient irrigation systems. As a standard condition for service connections, the Project would be expected to furnish the appropriate payment to IWA based on the meter size, ongoing flow charges, agency fees, and groundwater recharge fees. Since the RUWMP anticipated future water demand based off of land uses, and the Project includes a change of land use from OS to RC, the Project would increase overall planned demand for the area. However, the increase in water demand would be nominal.

The Project does not require and would not result in the construction of new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. It is assumed that sheet flows would be directed towards Jackson Street and further directed to the existing City operated and maintained retention basin. The existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the development. As a function of the WQMP, operation of the development would include the required non‐structural and structural pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality during the life of the Project and

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 650 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 66
under the Project owner’s responsibility.

Non‐structural source control measures consist of site operations, activities, and/or programs to be finalized in the WQMP and implemented by the Project operator to educate site managers, employees, and users to prevent potential pollutants from being produced, coming into contact with the storm drain system. Structural source control measures consist of physical facility design standards to prevent direct contact between potential pollutants and stormwater runoff.

The storm drain and retention system would be privately operated and maintained during the life of the Project per a required WQMP agreement to be entered between the Project proponent and the City. The proposed facilities are therefore not expected to violate or interfere with the groundwater quality. Regarding ground water quality, less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Less Than Significant Impact.
i) The partially developed infill projectsite is absent of any naturally occurring drainage or flood‐ prone patterns. Therefore, development of the site would not result in any alteration or obstruction of any river, stream, or other naturally occurring drainage pattern.

Based on the USGS Web Soil Survey, the site soils consist of Indio very fine sandy loam and Gilman fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes.

As a standard practice, erosion and siltation conditions would be prevented during construction and operation through the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include best management practices for proper soil stabilization and perimeter controls to prevent erosion and siltation from being generated by site clearing, grading, and construction activities. Upon completion and as a compliance requirement, all construction related soil disturbance would be properly restored to a stabilized condition consisting of permanent Project improvements (buildings, hardscape, pavement, and landscaping).

During the life of the Project, the ongoing maintenance and operation of facilities would ensure that all permanently improved ground surfaces are adequately maintained. As required by the City’s engineering standards and practices, all project‐related runoff must be adequately handled along engineered conveyances (sheet flow, swales, gutters, or pipes) to the designated retention facilities. Such storm drain system would be a function of the site plan and final engineering plans subject to City review and approval. Less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding substantial erosion or siltation, on or off of the site. ii) Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06065C2251H, effective March 6, 2023, the entire project site is located within Zone X, which is deemed an “area of minimal flood hazard”. This FEMA classification is not considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or a designated floodway. As a standard requirement, the proposed development includes adequate improvements and site design features to handle the relevant hydrologic conditions in a way that prevents inundation to the proposed structures and facilities. The Project would introduce impervious surfaces (buildings, hardscape, asphalt, etc.) to a vacant property, but would also include the required storm drain system (catch basins, lines, outlets, and retention facilities) to intercept, convey and retain the controlling storm event stormwater volume from the site. In adhering to the City’s engineering and retention requirements, the proposed development is not expected to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 651 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 67
iii) The City of Indio is a Permittee of the Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit area. Within the City limits, MS4 facilities include a system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man‐made channels, or storm drains) designed for collecting and conveying stormwater. Storm drain facilities can be public or private. Examples of public facilitiesinclude pipes, gutters, channels, and basins occurring within the public right‐of‐way and/or maintained by a public agency. Private facilities are distinguished by being maintained separately by a private entity. As discussed previously, the projectsite is absent of any existing private or public storm drain infrastructure.

The traditional land development process generally results in the conversion of pervious ground surface (pre‐development condition) into a setting with a higher impervious cover, occurring through the introduction of buildings, streets, and hardscape (post‐development condition). This conversion generally leadsto an increase in post‐construction runoff volumes and rates compared to the pre‐development condition.

As a standard requirement under Section 162.140 in the City’s Code of Ordinances, the Project is required to include retention facilities sized to contain stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100‐year, 24‐hour duration storm event. The Project’s engineering plans and retention levels would be subject to standard City review and approval. Therefore, by complying with the local retention requirements that take into account the existing facilities, the Project would prevent a runoff discharge condition capable of contributing to or exceeding the MS4 capacity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. iv) As previously described, the project site and its surroundings are deemed to be areas of minimal flood hazards according to FEMA FIRM panel 06065C2251H, effective March 6, 2023.

As such, the project site is not prone to flood flows or inundation that could be impeded or redirected. Stormwater runoff generated on‐site would be handled through on‐site retention before any runoff is conveyed to the public storm drain system. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
d) No Impact. The project site is not located near any coastal areas or any large body of water and therefore is not prone to tsunami hazards or seiche risks. The projectsite is not located in a floodplain or special flood hazard area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e) Less Than SignificantImpact. The Project proponent isrequired to implement a project‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region MS4 Permit and with the City’s on‐site retention standards. The final form of the WQMP would be consistent with final engineering documents to incorporate the grading, hydrology, and other improvement plans to demonstrate how the site design, source controls, and operation and maintenance program would achieve compliance. The combined retention capacity for the Project would meet the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100‐year storm event. The nearby storm water retention facilities would ensure that only stormwater runoff is recharged into the ground via infiltration. Therefore, Project implementation is not expected to conflict with the regional groundwater management strategies or with the Indio Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 652 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 68

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would
the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

a. No Impact. Examples of projects that can physically divide an established community include a new freeway or highway that traverses an established neighborhood. The project site is within a partially developed area of the City. The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Jackson Street at Avenue 42 intersection and is generally bordered by urban commercial development, see Table 1:

Surrounding Land Uses. The Project proposes three fast food restaurants with drive‐thrus, one sit‐ down restaurant with surface parking and the relocation of the Indio Municipal Golf Course parking lot. The Project does not propose any new streets or other physical barriers that could physically divide an established community. Given the location and nature of the proposed Project, the Project would not physically divide established communities. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is subject to the land use policies and regulations outlined in the General Plan and IUDC. The projectsite has an existing land use designation of Regional Commercial (RC) and Open Space (OS)29. Approximately 2.82 acres of the project site are designated as Regional Commercial (RC) and approximately 3.3 acres are designated as Parks and Open Space (APNs: 692‐670‐017 and 692‐040‐020).The Project proposes to amend this 3.3‐acre area to RC. This area is currently undeveloped, except for the parking lot for the golf course. The property to the east of the project site is the Indio Municipal Golf Course and is designated OS. The golf course is already developed and further expansion of this established use is not anticipated. The Project would reconfigure the golf course parking lot and develop the western portion of the site with restaurant uses. The proposed uses would be consistent with the RC zone and complementary to the neighboring OS designated Indio Municipal Golf Course. Error! Reference source not found. demonstrates the proposed Project’s consistency with General Plan policies. The proposed Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with the identified goals and policies of the General Plan.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to mitigate an environmental effect. Impacts would be lessthan significant and no mitigation isrequired.

Mitigation Program: None required.
29   City of Indio. (2022) City of Indio General Plan.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 653 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 69
Table 14: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Land Use Policy Consistency
Land Use and Urban Design
LU‐1.1 Overall city structure. Establish a clearly
defined City structure by:
• Re‐establishing the City’s pedestrian‐oriented
Downtown as a community anchor with local and
regional‐serving civic, arts, education, and
entertainment uses.
• Transforming the Midtown area into a mixed‐use
center with retail, commercial services, and
residential uses in a walkable format.
• Maintaining and enhancing the Festival District
as a key location for large‐scale entertainment
and recreational opportunities. This will be
accomplished by enacting buffering standard
through zoning for Festival District properties
and surrounding non‐Festival District properties
to limit conflicts in the uses and operations of
these properties.
• Creating mixed‐use corridors along Highway 111,
Monroe Street, Avenue 42, and Avenue 44 that
contain a mix of retail, service, office, and
residential uses. Corridors should have defined
nodes that provide a mix of local‐ and regional‐
serving uses.
• Investing in existing residential neighborhoods
adjacent to Downtown and Midtown.
• Infilling new residential neighborhoods arranged
around neighborhood centers and community
gathering spaces, such as schools and parks.
• Maintaining the I‐10 Employment Corridor
subarea as a critical economic engine for the
City.
• Facilitating major, regional‐serving commercial
districts that provide a mix of commercial,
entertainment, and service uses in a pedestrian‐
oriented format north of I‐10 at Jackson Street
and Avenue 40 to capitalize on regional
transportation and access.
 Preserving and protecting natural open space
and conservation areas in the Northern and
Eastern Sphere subareas.

Consistent. The Project proposes commercial uses along
the Avenue 42 corridor which would provide local‐ and
regional‐serving uses. Additionally, the Project would
provide and improve access to commercial and
entertainment uses along the Jackson Street corridor.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐1.1 LU‐1.3 Contiguous development. When
development occurs outside the Downtown,
Midtown, and existing central neighborhoods,
locate new development adjacent to Indio’s built
environment to create a contiguous expansion of
the City.

Consistent. The Project would provide additional
commercial uses on the partially developed property on the northeast corner of the intersection of Jackson Street at Avenue 42. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐1.3.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 654 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 70
Table 14: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Land Use Policy Consistency
LU‐2.6 Shade. Require the use of large shade trees
or structures to provide comfortable environments
during hot months.

Consistent. The Project would include shade providing trees within the parking lots and pedestrian area of the
development. Additionally, outdoor seating at restaurants would be covered and provide shade for outdoor dining in the hot months. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐2.6.

LU‐2.7 Parking lot and prominent pathways.

Require trees, shade structures, and/or other
cooling methods to provide comfortable walkways
during hot months.

Consistent. As mentioned above, the Project would include shade trees within the parking lots and pedestrian
sidewalks both inside and around the frontage of the
development. Therefore, the Project is consistent with
Policy LU‐2.7.

LU 3.1 Streetscape design. Create pedestrian‐
oriented streetscapes by establishing a unified
approach to street tree planting, sidewalk
dimensions and maintenance, pedestrian
amenities, and high‐quality building frontages.

Consistent. The Project would complete the existing
sidewalk along Jackson Street including landscaping.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐3.1.

LU 3.4 Tree Planting. Encourage the planting of
trees that appropriately shade the sidewalk and
offstreet parking areas to improve the pedestrian
experience throughout the City.

Consistent. As mentioned above, the Project would include trees along the project site frontage providing shade for the sidewalks along Avenue 42 and Jackson Street. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐3.4.

LU 3.5 Lighting. Require all new street lights in
commercial areas to be pedestrian‐oriented and
scaled, attractively designed, compatible in design
with other street furniture, and to provide
adequate visibility and security in accordance with
best practices for night sky protection.

Consistent. Project lighting would be designed to be
pedestrian‐oriented and scaled, compatible in design with other street furniture, and would provide adequate visibility and security in accordance with best practices for night sky protection. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐3.5.

LU 3.8 Underground utilities. Require private
development to underground all under 92 kV
electric poles and other overhead utilities. Require
City to codify this policy.

Consistent. The Project includes the undergrounding of
existing utilities along Jackson Street per City requirements.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐3.8.

LU‐4.1 Quality design. Use simple, urban building
forms made with permanent materials with high‐
quality detailing that stands the test of time.

Consistent. The Project buildings would both have a desert tone color palette with varying plains to breakup building massing. The modern façades would include plaster and
stucco with accent of ledgestone, oak wood, metal panels, stone veneer, and various colored stucco. Large glass
windows would be provided along the front and side
entries and the Chick‐Fil‐A, Dutch Bros Coffee, and other drive‐thru restaurants would include service windows for the drive‐thrus. Overall, the Project proposes simple, urban forms which are consistent and suitable within the
surrounding desert environment.  Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy LU‐4.1.

LU 4.7 Protect visual characteristics. Protect
Indio’s unique visual characteristics and views.

Consistent. The Project would not impact views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, Santa
Rosa Mountains or Indio Hills. Proposed structures on the site would not exceed three stories and would include
consistent massing with the surrounding commercial
development. Therefore, the Project is consistent with
Policy LU‐4.7.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 655 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 71
Table 14: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Land Use Policy Consistency
LU‐9.3 Access to transit. Encourage the
development of Neighborhood Centers that are
located on existing or planned transit stops,
particularly along Highway 111, Avenue 42, and
Avenue 50, in order to facilitate and take
advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips,
and allow residents without private vehicles to
access services.

Consistent. The project site is located at the intersection of Avenue 42 and Jackson Street and would provide additional services along the corridor for residents and visitors of the City. The SunLine Transit Agency provides public transit service to the Coachella Valley. There are two bus stops within 300 feet of the site which are served by SunLine Route 8 along Jackson Street (west of the project site).

Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy‐LU‐9.3.

Conservation Element
CE 4.2 Heritage Trees. Support the conservation of
heritage trees, or trees that are recognized as
unique due to their age, rarity, and large size as
well as their aesthetic, botanical, ecological, and
historic value.

Consistent. The project site does not contain any heritage trees and therefore would not remove or harm existing
heritage trees. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy CE‐4.2.

CE 7.1 CVMSHCP and other regulations.

Implement the CVMSPHCP. Ensure development is
consistent with federal, State, and regional
regulations for habitat and species protection.

Consistent. The project site is not located within a
CVMSHCP conservation area. However, the developer
would be required to pay the CVMSHCP Plan fee. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy CE‐7.1.

CE 7.8 Preserve night sky. Ensure that outdoor
lighting is shielded and directed away from natural
open space areas.

Consistent. All proposed outdoor lighting would be shielded and directed away from open space areas. Impacts to the Indio Municipal Golf Course would be minimal due to the routine nighttime lighting of the course in the evenings.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy CE‐7.8.

Source: City of Indio. (2022). Indio General Plan.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 656 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 72

12. MINERAL RESOURCES ‐‐  Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?

a. – b. No Impact. The project site has not historically or currently been used for mineral resource recovery. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires classification of land into mineral resource zones(MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of the area. There are four MRZ classifications, MRZ‐1 through MRZ‐4, as described below:
 MRZ‐1 are areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.  MRZ‐2 are areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.  MRZ‐3 are areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
 MRZ‐4 area areas where availability of information isinadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

The site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)‐130, which is described as areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources31. As such, the Project would not result in impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Further, the proposed Project does not involve any use that would result in any impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no loss of a known mineral resource and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program: None required.
30   City of Indio. (2019). City of Indio General Plan Conservation Element Figure 8‐2. Accessed June 23, 2023. 31   City of Indio. (2019). City of Indio General Plan Conservation Element. Page 8‐6. Accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 657 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 73

13. NOISE ‐‐ Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Sources: Kimley‐Horn has conducted an acoustical assessment analysis for the Project. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix H: Acoustical Assessment and summarized below. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the Indio General Plan or applicable standards of other agencies. The construction and operational noise for the proposed Project is discussed below.

Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods located to the northwest and southeast of the construction site. The nearestsensitive receptors are the single‐family residences located approximately 780 feet southeast and 850 feet northwest of the project site.32 .

There are also existing residential uses located approximately 140 feet northwest of the construction area. However, it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the projectsite and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.

Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for the construction equipment used in these phases may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower powersettings.

Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping material or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable 32   These are the same sensitive receptorsidentified in the Air Quality analysis, however,sensitive receptorsfor construction noise are measured from the center of the project site to the receptor’s nearest property line.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 658 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 74
generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed below in Table 15: Typical Construction Noise Levels.

Table 15: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet
from Source
Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pile‐driver (Impact) 101
Pile‐driver (Sonic) 95
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Following the Federal Transit Administrations’ (FTA) methodology, when calculating construction noise, all construction equipment is assumed to operate simultaneously at the center of the active construction zone. However, equipment would be operating throughout the site and not all of the equipment would be operating at the point closest to the sensitive receptors and considering the distance between the center of the project site and the sensitive receptors is a reasonable assumption. Therefore, the distances used in the RCNM Model were approximately 780 feet southeast and 850 feet northwest to the nearest residential receptors to the project site; refer to Appendix H: Acoustical Assessment for RCNM modeling results. The noise levels identified in Table 16: Project Construction Noise Levels, show the Project’s estimated exterior construction noise levels at the nearest noise‐sensitive uses without accounting for attenuation from existing physical barriers.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 659 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 75
Table 16: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction
Phase
Receptor Location Worst Case
Modeled Noise
Level, dBA
Leq (8‐hour) 2
FTA Noise
Standard,
dBA Leq 3 Land Use Distance (feet) Exceeded? 1
Demolition
Residential 780 62.8 80 No
Residential 850 62.1 80 No
Site Preparation
Residential 780 61.2 80 No
Residential 850 60.4 80 No
Grading
Residential 780 64.4 80 No
Residential 850 63.7 80 No
Paving
Residential 780 59.1 80 No
Residential 850 58.3 80 No
Building
Construction
Residential 780 59.5 80 No
Residential 850 58.8 80 No
Architectural
Coating
Residential 780 49.9 80 No
Residential 850 49.1 80 No

1. Distance measured from the center of the project site to the receptor’s nearest property line.

2. Modeled noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all pieces of equipment.

3. The FTA Noise and Vibration Manual establishes construction noise standards of 80 dBA Leq(8‐hour) for residential uses and 85 dBA Leq(8‐hour) for commercial uses.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix H for noise modeling results.

As shown in Table 16, construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA construction noise thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors would occur during the grading stage of construction and would be 71.4 dBA, which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA Leq construction threshold. Construction activities may also cause increased noise along site accessroutes due to movement of equipment and workers. Additionally, compliance with Section 95C.08 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Sunday and Holidays, would minimize impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours.

As discussed above, construction noise levels associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the FTA’s construction noise thresholds and would be required to comply with the Municipal Code standards. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant construction noise impact.

Operations
Project implementation would create new sources of noise in the vicinity of the projectsite. The major noise sources associated with the Project include mechanical equipment, drive‐through operations, outdoor dining, parking areas, and off‐site traffic noise.

Mechanical Equipment. Potential stationary noise sources related to long‐term operation of the proposed uses would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.33 At the closest sensitive receptor (the single‐family residences located approximately 250 feet northwest of on‐site mechanical equipment, noise would attenuate to 38.0 dBA and would not 33   Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 660 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 76
exceed the City’s allowable noise levels of 60 dBA for residential uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Drive‐Thru Operations. The Project proposes three new drive‐thru restaurants on vacant land. Drive‐ thru menu boards and intercoms could be located to the west of Building 1 located in the northwestern corner of the project site along Jackson Street, as well as south of Building 3 located in the southeastern corner of the project site along Avenue 42. The Project would also include Building 4, a drive‐thru coffee shop, located on the southwestern corner of the site. Project noise sourcesfrom drive thru operations include amplified speech from the intercom, idling vehicles, vehicles circulating along the drive‐thru lanes. The measured noise level associated with active drive‐thru operations is 64 dBA at a distance of 20 feet.34 The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed drive‐thru activities are the single‐family residences located approximately 190 feet to the northwest of and across Jackson Street from the project site. At this distance, drive‐thru noise would attenuate to 47.1 dBA, which is below the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise level standards for residential uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to drive‐thru noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Outdoor Dining. The Project would include an outdoor dining area on the eastern façade of the proposed restaurant building located nearest to the golf course. The outdoor dining area would be used by individuals orsmall groupsto gather outside for a meal and may include low‐level background music. Outdoor dining areas with music can generate noise levels up to approximately 82 dBA at one meter from the source.35 At the nearest sensitive receptors (single‐family residences located approximately 630 feet northwest of the outdoor dining area, outdoor dining noise would attenuate to 35.6 dBA, and would not exceed the City’s allowable noise levels of 60 dBA for residential uses.

Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to outdoor dining noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Parking Lot Noise. The Project would provide 240 parking stalls for the proposed restaurant uses and 80 parking stalls for the golf course. Parking stalls would be located throughout the project site.

Nominal parking noise would occur at the on‐site parking areas. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time‐ averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass‐bys range from 53 to 61 dBA36 at 50 feet and may be an annoyance to adjacent noise‐sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to nearby sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech.37 It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leqmetric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.

Parking lot noise would occur at the surface parking lots and would attenuate to approximately 47.0 dBA at the nearest residential receptors located approximately 250 feet northwest of the parking area, and would not exceed the City’s allowable noise levels of 60 dBA for residential uses. Parking lot noise also currently occurs at the adjacent properties under existing conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by 34   Drive‐thru noise sample collected at Raising Cane’s restaurant by Kimley‐Horn on August 17, 2018. 35   Obtained from the SoundPLAN Essential version 5.0 reference noise level database. 36   Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3‐10, 1991. 37   Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, 2015.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 661 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 77
background noise from traffic along area roadways. Noise associated with parking lot activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Off‐Site Traffic Noise. Project implementation would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. Traffic data provided by Kimley‐Horn (2023) shows that the proposed Project would generate 7,632 daily trips which would result in noise increases on project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable.38 Generally, traffic volumes on nearby roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.

According to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Coachella Valley Traffic Count Data 2010–2017, the average daily traffic along Jackson Street (the closest Collector Roadway with available traffic volumes) is 8,468 vehicles.39 Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate sufficient traffic to double existing volumes and result in a permanent 3‐dBA increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts associated with traffic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in ground‐borne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short‐term construction‐related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground‐borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operationsin their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative.

The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time (0.20 in/sec annoyance threshold)40. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

The nearest structure to the project site is the AutoZone Auto Parts building located approximately 30 feet to the west. The nearest residential structure is located approximately 140 feet northwest of the site. Table 17: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists vibration levels at 25 feet, 30 feet, and 140 feet for typical construction equipment. Ground‐borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in the table, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction 38 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, Noise Fundamentals, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed February 2, 2023. 39   Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Coachella Valley Traffic Count Data 2010–2017, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=fb9489b188e74be3b599afb52741849d, accessed February 2, 2023. This represents the closest intersection to the project site for which recent traffic counts have been collected. 40   California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 5, April 2020.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 662 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 78
equipment operationsthat could be used during Project construction range from 0.002 to 0.159 in/sec PPV at 30 feet from the source of activity (the distance from active construction zone to the nearest structure to the west), which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold forstructural damage and Caltrans threshold for annoyance. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the Project construction would be less than significant.

Table 17: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity at
30 Feet (in/sec)1
Peak Particle Velocity at
140 Feet (in/sec)1
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.159 0.016
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.067 0.007
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.058 0.006
Small Bulldozer/
Tractors 0.003 0.002 0.0002

1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7‐4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

2. Calculated using the following formula: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) ‐ (30 x log10(D/25 feet)) per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018).

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground‐borne vibration. Ground‐ borne vibration surrounding the site currently result from heavy‐duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Project operations would include periodic truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop‐off rate of ground‐borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic‐induced ground‐borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right‐of‐way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, trucks operating at the project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance.

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Crown Aero Bermuda Dunes Airport, a public use strip, located approximately 2.9 miles to the west and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (formerly Thermal Airport) located approximately 8.2 miles to the southeast. The project site is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or private airfield or identified within an airport land use plan.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport‐ or airstrip‐related noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 663 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 79

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING –Would
the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

a. Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project would locate new development with the effect of substantially inducing growth in the area that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude. The Project proposes three drive‐thru fast‐food restaurants and one sit‐down restaurant. It is anticipated that the Project would cumulatively have approximately 210 employees. Given the scale and nature of the Project, it is assumed that employment associated with these uses would not induce direct population growth in the City. It is assumed the new jobs could be filled by local residents who already reside in the City. Additionally, the Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b. No Impact. The project site does not contain any existing housing and no housing would be removed to accommodate the proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 664 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 80

15. PUBLIC SERVICES –
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Source: Desert Sands Unified School District, August 2022 School Impact/Developer Fees. Accessed August 2023.
a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is served by Indio’s Fire Department (IFD). The nearest fire station is Station 5, located at 42‐900 Golf Center Parkway, approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the project site. The IFD is a full‐service fire department with 56 full‐time staff. The proposed Project would not result in permanent population growth and would not incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services in the area. The forecast employment growth and increased demand for services would not exceed projections and anticipated public service needs.

Additionally, the incremental increase would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the project area.

Therefore, no physical impacts associated with fire protection services and facilities would occur.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to the IFD review process and be subject to payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF) which ensures that new development pays its fair share for services that are needed to meet demand.41 Compliance with fire code and building standards would minimize the Project’s operational impacts to fire protection services to the greatest extent practicable.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The Indio Police Department (IPD) provides police protection services to the area, inclusive of the project site. The IPD station is located at 46800 Jackson Street, approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. The IPD has approximately 80 staff and participates in the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid System. The Law Enforcement Mutual Aid System is used to restore order during emergencies and provides assistance to local agencies during other unusual events.

The proposed Project would not result in substantial population growth and would not substantially increase the demand for police services in the area. The forecast employment growth and increased demand for services would not exceed projections and anticipated public service needs. Additionally, Project implementation would not require the construction of new or the alteration of existing police facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the project area. Pursuant to the City’s existing 41   City of Indio Municipal Code Section 33.065 Development Impact Fees Findings and Intent. Accessed July 11, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 665 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 81
permitting process, the IPD would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that the crime prevention through design measures are incorporated. Additionally, the Project would be subject to payment of DIF which ensures that new development pays its fair share for services that are needed to meet demand. As a result, the proposed Project would not adversely impact service ratios or response times or require new or altered facilities. Therefore, the Project’s impact on police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. Less Than Significant Impact. The City is served by both the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). Per the General Plan EIR, both school districts are operating at or over capacity. The project site is within the boundaries of the DSUSD. The Project does not include any residential development. The proposed Project is expected to have approximately 210 employees. These employees would predominantly come from the existing workforce in the City and would therefore not contribute to a significant population increase and associated student population influx to any specific school in the DSUSD or CVUSD service area.

School funding comes predominantly from federal, State, and local contributions, including business and personal income taxes,salestax, and property tax. Although the Project would result in a nominal indirect incremental increased demand for school services, the Project would be required to comply with SB 50 requirements, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new projects. The current DSUSD development fee for restaurant commercial uses is $0.78/sf.42 As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed …are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization …on the provision of adequate school facilities.” Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development of the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, the Project would not contribute to a significant student population increase and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Section 16, Recreation. e. Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Library System provides library services to the area. The nearest library to the projectsite isthe Indio Public Library, located at 200 Civic Center Drive, approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the site. The proposed Project would not result in substantial permanent population growth and would not incrementally increase the demand for library services in the area. The threshold for determining impacts pursuant to CEQA is based upon whether a project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. The impacts to the overall per capita availability of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not create significant physical or environmental impacts. Therefore, project‐related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
42   Desert Sands Unified School District,  August 2022 School Impact/Developer Fees. Accessed July 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 666 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 82

16. RECREATION –
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilitiessuch that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

a. – b. Less Than Significant Impact. The City manages over 107 acres of parkland and 16 parksthroughout the City, excluding golf courses.43 The Project includes three drive‐thru fast‐food restaurants and one sit‐down restaurant. The Project is not a residential development that would generate a permanent increase of residents in the area leading to a demand for park services. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities and no new recreational facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
43   City of Indio. (2019). City of Indio General Plan Indio Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element. Page 7‐3. Accessed June 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 667 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 83

17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Sources: TJW Engineering Inc. has conducted a Focused Traffic Study for the proposed Project and Kimley‐ Horn has conducted a Traffic Memorandum. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix I:

Traffic Study and summarized below.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Construction Traffic
Automobile and truck traffic volumes associated with project‐related construction activities would vary throughout the construction phases, as different activities occur. However, project‐related construction traffic would be temporary and cease upon Project completion.

Project Trip Generation
The trip generation was determined using trip generation rates from the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) and pass‐by ratesfrom the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition). The Project is projected to generate 6,393 daily trips, 377 AM peak hour trips, and 254 PM peak hour trips; see Appendix I for the trip generation table.

All roadway and driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to City and Indio Fire Department requirements. There are no proposed off‐site roadway improvements. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning roadway facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 668 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 84
Transit Facilities
SunLine provides public transportation service in the City of Indio.44 The SunLine transit routes that serve the project site include RT 81 and RT 80‐T. There are currently two bus stops within a 0.25‐mile of the site: one located at the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 and the other located at the intersection of Avenue 42 and Calhoun Street. Proximity to transit opportunities would allow convenient access to future customers and employees of the proposed Project. Project construction and operation would not impact transit facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The City of Indio Complete Streets and Drainage Master Plan identifies a high‐quality bicycle network that includes Class I, II, III, and IV bicycle facilities to support active transportation throughout the City.45 Figure 2.10: Existing Bikeway Facilities of the Complete Streets and Drainage Master Plan shows the existing Class I and Class II Bike facilities and the proposed Class I, II, III, and IV bicycle facilities throughout the City. There is an existing ClassII Bike Lane on Avenue 42 between Golf Center Parkway and Jackson Street which runs along the southern boundary of the project site. A Class II Bike Lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that is designated by striping, signaling, and/or pavement markings for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Figure 2.10 also identifies Avenue 42 between Golf Center Parkway and Jackson Street as a proposed ClassIV Protected Bike Lane. A Class IV Protected Bike Lane is defined as a separated bikeway that includes a physical barrier between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic within the roadway.

The proposed Project does not propose to remove the existing bike lane, nor would it prohibit the installation of the proposed Class IV Protected Bike Lane. Project construction could temporarily impact bicycle facilities with a temporary closure or rerouting of the existing Class II Bike Lane; however, this would be temporary and would not result in a significant impact to bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are provided in the area along Avenue 42 and Jackson Street. North of the AutoZone, a sidewalk would be constructed on Jackson Street along the project site frontage. Project construction could temporarily impact pedestrian facilities; however, this would be temporary and would notresult in a significant impact to pedestrian facilities.

The proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities bicycle facilities.

Therefore, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 required changes to CEQA, specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS asthe primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that require VMT for the purpose of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA.

The County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (December 2020) provides details on appropriate screening thresholds that can 44   City of Indio, 2020, Complete Streets & Drainage Master Plan, Page 43 and Figure 2.14: SunLine Transit Bus Routes in the City of Indio.

Accessible at: https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2643/638006882351570000, accessed June 23, 2023. 45   City of Indio, 2020, Complete Streets & Drainage Master Plan, Figure 2.10: Existing Bikeway Facilities. Accessible at:
https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2643/638006882351570000, accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 669 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 85
be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less‐than‐significant impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds are broken down into the following seven project types:
 Small Projects
 Projects Net High Quality Transit
 Local‐Serving Retail
 Affordable Housing
 Local Essential Service
 Map‐Based Screening
 Redevelopment Projects
Land development projects that meet one or more of the above screening thresholds may be presumed to create a less‐than‐significant impact on transportation and circulation while all other project types are presumed to not be screened out.

Pursuant to the County’s guidelines, a project is presumed to cause a less than significant impact if no single store on a project site exceeds 50,000 sf and the project is determined to be local‐serving by the local agency’s Transportation Department. This project type has been determined to reduce VMT by shortening trips that will occur. Since the proposed Project is a local‐serving retail and the total square footage of the project site is less than 50,000 sf. Therefore, the proposed Project screens out of Local‐Serving Retail and is presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact and no mitigation is required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from three full‐ movement driveways on Jackson Street and two full‐movement driveways on Avenue 42. All driveways are unsignalized except for one driveway on Avenue 42. Once vehicles access the project site, they would either park or line up in the queue for one of the drive‐thru restaurants. A queuing analysis was conducted for the proposed Project. The analysis concluded the following for the three drive‐thru restaurant buildings:

Building 1
The user of this building has not yet been determined. However, the site plan for Building 1 has been designed to include a drive‐thru lane. The drive‐thru lane for Building 1 has the capacity to accommodate 17 vehicles at any given time. The queuing analysis that was conducted for the Project determined that a 17 vehicle drive‐thru capacity would be able to support a high‐volume user.

Building 3
The user of this building would be Chick‐Fil‐A. The queuing analysis for the project site used the 85th percentile of four Chick‐Fil‐A locations that were observed during the study and determined that the drive‐thru lane for Building 3 would need to accommodate 18 vehicles. The drive‐thru design in proposed site plan has the capacity to accommodate 53 vehicles at a given time, which exceeds the queuing capacity of 18 vehicles.

Building 4
The user of this building would be Dutch Bros, a coffee drive‐thru use. The queuing analysis for the project site used the 85th percentile of two Dutch Bros locations that were observed during the study and determined that the drive‐thru lane for Building 4 would need to accommodate 9 vehicles. The

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 670 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 86
drive‐thru design for Building 4 has the capacity to accommodate 22 vehicles at a given time, which exceeds the queuing capacity of 9 vehicles.

The existing turning lane capacities are projected to accommodate Existing Plus Project 95th percentile queue lengths throughout the study area, and Project driveway queues are not expected to impede on‐ site circulation (see Appendix I). At the relocated golf course parking entrance, 95th percentile queues are not forecasted to impede parking lot circulation, and the access point is forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service. In the event that the number of vehicles in the proposed drive‐thru lane were to exceed its queuing capacity, the excess vehicles would be contained within the site and would not stack onto the City’s right‐of‐way. Additionally, employees would also help direct traffic on the project site to prevent spill over onto public streets.

Construction of the driveways and internal circulation improvements design would be subject to City Building and Fire Department standards. The project site is bordered by existing roadways and urban land uses. The proposed Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment, such as farm equipment. There are no components of the Project that would increase hazards to the public due to incompatible use. The proposed Project would develop a fast‐food restaurant in an urbanized area of the City, adjacent to and near other existing restaurants with drive‐thrus. The Project would be compatible with the surrounding environment. Therefore, such impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, from three full‐movement driveways on Jackson Street and two full‐movement driveways on Avenue 42. The driveways on Jackson Street and Avenue 42 would provide emergency vehicle access to the site. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in fire codes, building codes, and safety standards. No changes to the existing roadway network would occur. As previously discussed in Threshold 4.9f, there are no established emergency evacuation routes in the City of Indio, per the Indio General Plan EIR.46 Additionally, the Project would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
46   City of Indio, 2019, Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Indio General Plan Update, Page 4.8‐23. Available at:
https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/924/637874293008870000, accessed June 16, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 671 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 87

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES –
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial Adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local Register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resource Code Section 5020.1(k), or;
ii)A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American Tribe.
ai)   Less Than Significant. The project site is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or eligible for listing by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR.

Further, a record search conducted at SCCIC, which included a search of the CRHR, did not identify any listed or eligible tribal cultural resources (TCRs) that would be adversely affected by the proposed Project. Additionally, the NAHC Sacred Lands File Search produced a negative result for TCRs proximate to the project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known TCR, either listed in the California Register of Historic Resources or in a local register, or that is determined by the City of Anaheim, at its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. aii)  Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52) requires that lead agencies evaluate a project’s potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, based on substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
The Project also requires a General Plan Amendment, and is therefore subject to the requirements of SB 18. SB 18 requires a local government to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is considering the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 672 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 88
In compliance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), 5097.9, and 5097.995, the City has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about the adverse effects of development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. The City has contacted the tribal representatives noted below.
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Reid Milanovich  Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Patricia Garcia‐Plotkin  Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Amanda Vance  Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Doug Welmas
 Cahuilla Band of Indians, Daniel Salgado
 Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Ralph Goff
 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Michael Garcia
 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Robert Pinto
 La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Javaughn Miller  La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Gwendolyn Parada  Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, Ray Chapparosa  Manzanita Band of Kumeyayy Nation, Angela Elliot Santos  Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, Michael Linton  Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Ann Brierty
 Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin
 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Jordan Joaquin  Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Jill McCormick  Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, Manfred Scott  Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Joseph Hamilton
 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Lovina Redner
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Isaiah Vivanco
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Joseph Ontiveros
 Torres‐Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Thomas Tortez  Twenty‐Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, Darrell Mike Correspondence to tribal representatives is included in Appendix J: Native American Tribal Consultation Correspondence to this Initial Study. At the time of publication of this Initial Study, the City was contacted by tribal representatives of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians states that the project site is not within the boundaries of the ancestral territory or traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indiansrequested monitoring during grading and requested a copy of the Cultural Resources report; the report was sent to the tribal representative by the City.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 673 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 89
It is unlikely that Native American tribal cultural resources are present on the project site, given prior site disturbance. Notwithstanding, Project construction would include limited excavation and grading.

Therefore, there is the potential for the Project to affect previously unidentified Native American tribal cultural resources. The Project would be subject to compliance with MM CR‐1, which requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and Native American Cultural Resources monitor, and outlines specific instructions if resources are found. If resources are found, the archaeologist would temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Project applicant. Implementation of MM CR‐1 would reduce any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
See MM CR‐1 in the Cultural Resources section.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 674 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 90

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS –
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient watersupplies available
to serve the project and reasonable
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal,state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Less Than Significant Impact.

Water
The Indio Water Authority (IWA) provides water service in the City, inclusive of the project area. The Coachella Valley Water Districts Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) was prepared on behalf of six urban water suppliers in the Coachella Valley, including the IWA. According to the RUWMP, 2020 water use in the service area was 331 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) or 99,842 acre‐ feet per year (AFY).47 The projected water demand for the Project would be 798 AFY based on 3.8 AFY per person for 210 employees. According to RUWMP, commercial, industrial and institutional land use water demand for IWA is projected to increase from 6,183 AFY in 2020 to 7,985 AFY by 2045.48,49 Therefore, Project water demand would account for less than 13 percent of the 2020 water demand and less than 10 percent of the 2045 water demand for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional uses or less than 8 percent of the overall demand.
47   Coachella Valley Water District. (2020). 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 4‐14. Accessed June 23, 2023. 48   Coachella Valley Water District. (2020). 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 4‐7. Accessed June 23, 2023. 49   Coachella Valley Water District. (2020). 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Table 4‐8. Accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 675 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 91
Wastewater
The Valley Sanitation District (VSD) is responsible for management and operation of approximately 254 miles of public sewers that convey about 5.47 million gallons per day (mgd) of flow from residences and businesses to the City's one wastewater treatment and water reclamation plant.50 According to the VSD Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), VSD operates its own water reclamation facility to treat wastewater from its service district area.51 Per the VSD Master Plan, the water reclamation facility, located at the intersection of Van Buren Street and Enterprise Way, has a treatment capacity of 10 mgd by 2027, 13.3 mgd by 2045, and up to 18 mgd at full buildout.

According to the SSMP, the City uses a model to accumulate the wastewater contributions along each sewer to estimate dry‐weather flows for current and future conditions. The SSMP notes the gallons per day (gpd) per person is 62.5. Therefore, assuming 210 employees as a result of the proposed Project, projected peak wastewater generation is anticipated to be 13,125 gpd. The estimated Project wastewater generation represents approximately one percent of the 2027 total treatment capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities are able to accommodate the project‐generated wastewater. Further, the City collects payment of development impact fees as outlined in IUDC Chapters 33 and 57, which would contribute to the necessary costs required to upgrade and maintain operation of the VSD water reclamation facility. Impacts would be less than significant.

Further, the Project would construct new storm drainage infrastructure and retain stormwater on site. The Project proposes four underground infiltration systems within the parking areas. It is assumed that any additional sheet flows would be directed towards Jackson Street and further directed to the existing City operated and maintained retention basin located approximately 663 feet to the north of the project site, although the proposed facilities would be adequate to accommodate the development. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

There are existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities in surrounding roadways.

Project implementation would connect to existing infrastructure and would not require construction of new facilities beyond point of connections. No new facilities or relocation of existing utility infrastructure would be required; therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, IWD would provide water service to the project site. IWA depends solely on local groundwater sourced from the Whitewater River Basin for potable water. The IWA’s 2015 UWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment in accordance with the California Water Code 10632(a). The UWMP includes future demand estimates for various hydrologic conditions: a normal year, a single‐year, and multiple‐dry years. IWA projected demand is not estimated to exceed their supplies in a normal year, single‐year, or multiple‐dry years.52 The Project’s water demand would be approximately 798 AFY based on 210 employees. Indoor water conservation measures include low flow rate plumbing fixtures, while outdoor water use would use subsurface dripline irrigation, low water use plant materials, weather‐based irrigation controllers, and mulch.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with IUDC Section 3.02.09 – Landscaping.

As previously mentioned, IWA anticipates an increase in water use through 2045. According to the UWMP, the available water supply would meet projected demand during normal, dry, and multiple 50 Valley Sanitary District. (2021). Valley Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.valley‐ sanitary.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif721/f/uploads/valley_sanitary_ssmp_2023.pdf. Accessed on June 23, 2023. 51   Valley Sanitary District. (2021). Valley Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan. Retrieved from:  https://www.valley‐ sanitary.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif721/f/uploads/valley_sanitary_ssmp_2023.pdf. Accessed on June 23, 2023. 52   City of Indio. (2022). Indio General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 676 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 92
dry years through 2045. The increase in water demand associated with the proposed Project would represent a nominal portion of IWA’s projected water demand increase. Therefore, the increase in water demand generated by Project implementation can be accommodated by the IWA. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. The Project’s wastewater infrastructure would include a connection to the existing commercial development to the southwest as an eight‐ inch sewer line. The Project would connect to the existing eight‐inch sewer main within the commercial development through an eight‐inch pipe. The sewer pipe would extend east toward the parking lot and eventually connect to all four buildings. The Project would also install grease interceptors for the buildings. The projected peak wastewater generation is anticipated to be 13,125 gpd. The Project’s estimated wastewater generation represents approximately one percent of the total 2027 treatment capacity at the VCD wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would be able to accommodate the project‐generated wastewater. Additionally, the Applicant would be required to pay development impact fees as outlined in IUDC Chapters 33 and 57 which would contribute to the necessary costs required to upgrade and maintain operation of the VSD water reclamation facility. The increase would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste e) generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services provides solid waste collection services in the City. Solid waste is hauled to the Indio/Coachella Valley Waste Transfer Station in the City of Coachella for separation and recycling. Waste that cannot be recycled is transferred to regional Riverside County landfills.52 Solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be disposed at one of the following listed Riverside County landfills. Table 18: Riverside County Landfill Capacity, provides capacity details for the landfill.

Table 18: Riverside County Landfill Capacity
Landfill
Estimated
Closure Year
Permitted Capacity
(tons per day)
Maximum
Permitted Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Remaining Capacity
(Cubic Yards)
Blythe 2047 400 6,229,670 12,700,000
Desert Center 2087 60 115,341 35,714
El Sobrante 2045 16,054 184,930,000 145,530,000
Lamb Canyon 2029 5,500 38,935,653 19,242,950
Mecca Landfill II 2098 400 452,182 6,371
Oasis 2055 400 1,097,152 433,779
Total  ‐  ‐  266,159,998 181,783,284
Source: City of Indio. (2022). Indio General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Accessed June 2023.

The Project’s solid waste volume is considered a nominal amount of the daily capacity of the landfills serving the project site. All demolition waste removed from the site would be disposed of in compliance with the State of California Waste Management Act (AB 939). Existing landfills have sufficient capacity to serve the Project.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 677 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 93
State, County, and local agencies with regulatory authority related to solid waste include the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, VSD, and other franchised authorized waste haulers in the City. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed Project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), Section 4.408 of the CALGreen Code, and AB 341, which requires both multi‐family residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.

The Integrated Waste Management Act, which requires every City and County in the State to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the State’s mandatory waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. AB 341 increased the diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020.

CALGreen Code Section 4.408 requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that outlines waysin which the contractor would recycle and/orsalvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. During the construction phase, the proposed Project would comply with the CALGreen Code through the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from the project site. No conflict with statutes and regulations related to solid waste would occur. No mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 678 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 94

20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would
the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrationsfrom a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water resources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff post‐fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
a) No Impact. According to CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the projectsite is not within a State Responsibility Area.53 The site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area. Project design and site access would adhere to City of Indio Fire Department regulations and design standards. Further, Project construction would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. The Project would be reviewed and approved by the City of Indio Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that it would not preclude or interfere with emergency access or fail to comply with fire department standards. Therefore, the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. b) No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not within or near an area classified as a VHFHSZ.

Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) No Impact. The project site is not within an area classified as a VHFHSZ. The site is bordered by urban land uses, roadways, and a golf course. The proposed Project would tie into existing infrastructure that currently serves the project area. Project implementation would not result in the new construction, installation, or maintenance of new infrastructure. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
53   California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 679 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 95
d) No Impact. As previously mentioned, the site is not within an area classified as a VHFHSZ. It is generally flat with on‐site elevations ranging from approximately 13 to 18 feet below sea level and does not include any downslopes. According to the California Geological Survey, the project site is not within an area identified as having a potential for landslides.54 Since the site and surrounding areas are relatively flat, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
54   California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

Accessed June 23, 2023.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 680 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 96

21. MANDATORY FINDINGSOF

SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Doesthe project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory with incorporation of MM BIO‐1, BIO‐2, and BIO‐3. The project site is bordered by existing development in the City of Indio. The proposed Project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not have a significant impact on any sensitive, rare, or endangered plant/wildlife community.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Incremental impacts resulting from development and operation of the Project and other cumulative projects that would be under construction include air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal resources.

The analysis concluded that these incremental impacts are each less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. When viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects, the Project’s

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 681 of 3061 The Greens – Indio
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2023 97
contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. The analysis contained in this Initial Study evaluated existing conditions, potential impacts associated with the development of the Project, and possible environmental cumulative impacts. The Project does not have any impact on projected growth or planned projects for the City of Indio or neighboring jurisdictions known as of the date of this analysis. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be directly or indirectly caused by the proposed Project. The Project’s impacts involving adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving seismic‐ related ground failure, including liquefaction would be mitigated to less than significant with incorporation of GEO‐1 and GEO‐2. The environmental evaluation has concluded that no significant environmental impacts will result from the Project.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 682 of 3061 Appendix A

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 683 of 3061 Air Quality Assessment
The Greens Indio Project
City of Indio, California
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Contact: Mr. Ryan Chiene
714.705.1343
August 2023

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 684 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description............................................................................................................................................ 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Climate and Meteorology ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Sensitive Receptors........................................................................................................................................... 9 3 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................................................10

3.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 State of California............................................................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Regional........................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Local ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................16

4.1 Air Quality Thresholds..................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Methodology................................................................................................................................................... 17 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION...................................................................................................................19

5.1 Air Quality Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Cumulative Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 28 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................29 TABLES
Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns....................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Data.......................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................................................. 11 Table 5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status................................................................................................................ 13 Table 6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds..................................................................... 16 Table 7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations................................................................................... 17 Table 8: Construction-Related Emissions............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 9: Operational Emissions............................................................................................................................................ 22 Table 10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates.......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions................................................................................................... 24 Table 12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions..................................................................................................... 25

FIGURES
Figure 1:Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 685 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO Carbon monoxide
cy cubic yards
DPM Diesel particulate matter
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
Pb Lead
LST Localized significance threshold
µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxide
O3 Ozone
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm Parts per million
ROG Reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SRA Source receptor area
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
sf Square foot
SO4-2 Sulfates
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
TAC Toxic air contaminant
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C2H3Cl Vinyl chloride
VOC Volatile organic compound

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 686 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality Assessment completed for the Greens Indio Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). The purpose of this Air Quality Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located at the northeastern corner of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 (APNs 692-670- 001, -014, and -017), in the City of Indio (City), California; refer to Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The Project site is approximately 6.34 acres and regional access to the Project site is provided via Interstate 10 (I-10). Local access to the Project site is provided via Jackson Street and Avenue 42, both four-lane roadways. The Project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west, north, and south, a golf course to the east, and residential uses to the north. The site is bordered by a surface parking lot to the north, Jackson Street to the west, Avenue 42 to the south, and the Lights at Indio Golf Course to the east; refer to Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map.

1.2 Project Description
The Project proposes a mixed-use development consisting of 13,288 square feet (sf) of commercial retail space including the following: a 3,750 sf fast food restaurant with drive-through; a 980 sf coffee shop with drive-through; a 3,996 sf fast food restaurant with drive-through; and a 4,562 sf high turnover sit down restaurant with a patio opening up to the golf course; refer to Figure 3, Site Plan. As noted above, the Project site’s ingress and egress would be provided via four driveways with two located on Jackson Street and two located on Avenue 42. Approximately 17 percent (approximately 38,823 sf) of the Project site area would be landscaped.

Project implementation would require the construction of new on-site and off-site utility infrastructure connections to serve the proposed commercial retail uses. These utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure. Trenching for new electrical conduit and wire would occur on the north side of Avenue 42 behind the existing sidewalk and from the single-family development to the western boundary of the Project site. The off-site trenching would be approximately 1,250 feet from the western boundary of the single-family residential development to the eastern terminus of the Project site. Trenching and construction activities associated with these off-site improvements are evaluated as a part of the overall Project.

Construction is anticipated to occur over a duration of approximately eight months, commencing in January 2024.

Parking
The Project is anticipated to provide 245 vehicle parking stall and 10 bicycle parking spaces would be provided on the site. Additionally, a new golf course parking lot, consisting of 87 parking stalls, will be constructed on City owned property located on the southeastern corner of the site, for use by the golf course as part of this Project refer to Figure 3.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 687 of 3061 The Greens Indio Project Not to scale
Source: USGS, 2023
Figure 1: Regional Location Map Monroe St N Sun City Blvd Madison St
L
i
n
d
y
L
n
BiskraPalms
Whitewater Ri ver
10 Siroc
c
o
A
v
e
n
ta
Elise
C
a
m
i
n
o
l
o
s
Milagros
AlbertaAve
Madison St Madison St
4 0
t
h
A
v
e
e
d
W
a
r
i
n
g
D
r
F
r
e
d
W
a
r
i
n
g
D
r
Avenue42
Indio
Blvd
ShadowHills
GolfClub
M
i
l
e
s
A
v
e
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
A
v
e
C o a c h e l l a
V a l l e y
145ft
Vista del Oro
HopiAve
Jackson St
K
e
n
n
e
r
A
v
e
S
t
r
a
d
i
v
a
r
i
R
d
Ocot
i
l
l
o
A
v
e
A
venue43
Broadmoor Dr
aL go Vista Blvd
C
r
e
s
t
Av
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 4
Monroe St
A
d
o
b
e
R
d
V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a
A
v
e
R
u
b
y
A
v
e
Calhoun St
S
Bay
Dr
Ma
r
k
e
t
S
t
S
h
o
w
c
a
s
e
P
k
w
y
G
r
e
e
n
b
r
i
a
r
D
r
Gore St
North Shore
Dr
Jackson St
Monroe St
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 2
Indio
Blvd
IndioMunicipal
GolfCourse
111
10 King St
M
i
l
e
s
A
v
e
Sie
r
ra
A
v
e
BlissAve
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 5
Comme rce St
Smurr St
Indio
Blvd
Indio
206ft
429ft
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 4
B
r
a
c
k
R
d
Te
rra
Lago
Land
F
i
l
l
Te
rra
Lag
o
Pkwy
Dillon Rd
TheGolfClub
atTerraLago
16ft
Tyler St
Dillon R
EagleFallsGolf
d
Course
3, 9:59:06 AM
0 0.38
0 0.5
Project Site
Stockton
Fremont
Salinas
Fresno
SanJose
d a Mou n t a i n s
San J oa q u i n Va l l ey
Ra n g e
Sequoia
NationalForest
SantaMaria
Lompoc
SantaBarbara
SanLuisObispo
Oxnard
SantaClarita
Visalia
Lancaster
Bakersfield
LongBeach
LosAngeles
S a n Joa qu i n V a l l e y
Coa s ta l Ra n g e
NellisAirForce
Range
Nevada
National
SecuritySite
p
Mesquite
StGeorge
Gila
YumaProving
Ground
MarineCorps
Agcc
Twentynine
Palms
ChocolateMtn
AerialGunnery
Range
Grand
Canyon-Parashant
NM
Mojave
National
Preserve
DeathValley
NationalPark
CabezaPrieta
Nat'lWildlife
Refuge
LakeHavasuCity
Murrieta
Indio
Riverside
Oceanside
Henderson
Victorville
Palmdale
Mexicali
LasVegas
SanDiego
Tijuana
Sonoran
Desert
Mojave
Desert
Ensenada
Dix
SonoranDesert
NM
GrandCanyon
NationalPark
KaibabNational
Forest
A
Prescott
Pho
S
Califo
USGS
USGS
2/3/2023, 10:05:13 AM
0 45
0 75
City of San Jose | Esri, USGS | California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA

Not to scale
Source: Google Earth, 2023.

Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map
The Greens Indio Project
Project Site
Off-Site Improvements
Legend

Not to scale
Figure 3: Site Plan
The Greens Indio Project
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2023
N.A.P.

EXISTING

AUTO PARTS
& SERVICE
N.A.P.

EXISTING

GAS STATION,

CONVENIENCE STORE,
& CAR WASH
AVENUE 42

JACKSON STREET
S 89°31'2" E 239.91'
S 0°7'52" W 243.11'
S 0°0'0" E 151.29'
BLDG 1
D/T REST.
±3,750 SF
24 29
65' 24
16 24
11 2
3 TE
TE
BLDG 4
D/T REST.
±980 SF 28 5
5 43
6 BLDG 2
REST.
±3,996 SF
12 COVERED
PATIO
±2,270 SF
60'
50'
75'
87 GOLF COURSE

STALLS (NOT

INCLUDED IN PARKING

CALCULATIONS)
12 13
8 2 TE
BLDG 3
D/T REST.
±4,562 SF
9 6
18 13
10 9
62'-2"
82'-2"
PATIO
SHADE

STRUCTURE
SHADE

STRUCTURE
NORTH

SITE INFORMATION
APN: 692-670-001,
692-670-014,
692-670-017
TOTAL PARCEL AREA: ±266,735 SF (±6.12 AC)
TOTAL BLDG AREA: ±13,288 SF
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): ±0.050

PARKING INFORMATION
PARKING REQUIREMENT: 1 STALL / 100 SF
STALLS REQUIRED: 133 STALLS
STALLS PROVIDED: 245 STALLS
PARKING RATIO: ±18.4/1,000 SF

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT SITE
143
AVENUE 42

JACKSON ST

City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. 1 Air
quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.

Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.

Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 691 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 6
the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter.

2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by State and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.

ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particlephase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 692 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 7
Table 1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles, and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis;
irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks;
and premature death in people with heart or
lung disease. Impairs visibility.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Motor vehicle exhaust industrial emissions,
gasoline storage and transport, solvents,
paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron, and steel.

Damages crops and natural vegetation.

Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen
to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular
and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to
global warming and nutrient overloading
which deteriorates water quality. Causes
brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metals processing is the
major source of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of lead in air are
generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the
blood, bones, and soft tissues and can
adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous
system, and other organs. Excessive exposure
to lead may cause neurological impairments
such as seizures, mental retardation, and
behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead
exposure is associated with damage to the
nervous systems of fetuses and young
children, resulting in learning deficits and
lowered IQ.

Notes:
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/, accessed January 2023.

Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 693 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 8
trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Indio-Jackson Street Monitoring Stations (located approximately 2.40 miles to the south of the Project site). Local air quality data from 2019 to 2021 are provided in Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of State or federal air quality standards for each year.

Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.103 0.097 0.099
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.087 0.084 0.078
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 4 2 2
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 43 42 19
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) -- -- --
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) -- -- --
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) -- -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) -- -- --
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) -- -- --
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) -- -- --
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 141.9 145.2 100.4 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 80.3 53.8 100.6
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) * * * Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 4 2 5
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 15.0 41.3 30.6
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 15.0 41.3 30.6
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 0 2.1 0
Notes:

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured; * Insufficient (or no) data 1 Measurements taken at the Indio-Jackson Street Monitoring Station at 46990 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201 (CARB# 33157) Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO and NO2, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php).

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 694 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 9

2.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of the Project site consist of single-family residential communities. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 3: Sensitive Receptors.

Table 3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance1 and Direction from the Project Single-Family Residences 150 feet to the southeast
Single-Family Residences 190 feet to the northwest
Source: Google Earth, 2023.

1. Distance measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 695 of 3061 City of Indio The Greens Indio Project
Air Quality Assessment
August 2023
Page | 10
3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The U.S. EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the U.S. EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The U.S. EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4: State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

3.2 State of California
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the SIP for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a State standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The applicable State standards are summarized in Table 4.