Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 128 of 337 has been designed to comply with applicable SN-8 development standards, including minimum lot size, setbacks, building height, and open space requirements. The minimum lot size in the SN-8 zone is 5,000 square feet and all proposed lots meet or exceed this requirement. Required setbacks for primary structures in SN-8 include a minimum front yard setback of 15 feet, a street side setback of 10 feet, an interior side setback of 5 feet, and a rear yard setback of 10 feet. The conceptual site plan previously approved by the Planning Commission demonstrates that all proposed lots can accommodate single-family homes in compliance with these setback standards. The maximum building height allowed in the SN-8 zone is 35 feet. All future residential structures will be required to comply with this height standard through the building permit review process. Parking requirements for single-family detached homes in the SN-8 zone are a minimum of two covered spaces per dwelling unit, which may be provided in an enclosed garage or carport. Each lot within the subdivision has been designed to accommodate the required parking on site.
The project, through the Planning Review (PLAN-PRD-24-0015) process, has been previously evaluated for consistency with all applicable SN-8 zoning regulations, subdivision standards, and City design guidelines applicable to residential neighborhoods.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
PLANNING REVIEW FINDINGS
Pursuant to Indio Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 6.04.03, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for design review approval, as applicable:
I. General Plan Consistency – Consistency with General Plan policies and any applicable specific plan, project master plan, or development agreement.
General Plan Consistency
The City of Indio General Plan 2040, adopted on September 18, 2019, provides a long-term framework for guiding land use, economic development, transportation, and infrastructure decisions. The project site is located on 5.62 acres within the Suburban Neighborhood High (SNH) land use designation under the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map.
The SNH designation supports single-family detached and attached homes, townhomes, and other neighborhood-scale residential types at densities generally ranging from 4.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. It is intended to create walkable neighborhoods with a connected street network, pedestrian-friendly design, and access to parks, schools, and neighborhood services. Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 proposes to subdivide the site into 34 single-family residential lots, resulting in a gross density of approximately 6.05 dwelling units per acre, which is within the permitted range for the SNH designation.
The subdivision layout supports General Plan goals for compact suburban neighborhoods, providing a mix of lot sizes, internal street connectivity, and opportunities for landscaping and open space that align with community character objectives. The proposed subdivision pattern and infrastructure improvements are consistent with the General Plan’s policies for providing adequate public facilities, ensuring safe and efficient circulation, and integrating residential development into the broader neighborhood fabric.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 129 of 337 The project is also consistent with General Plan 2040 goals and policies related to land use compatibility, housing diversity, and provision of infrastructure, as further detailed in the General Plan Consistency Findings section.
The proposed Sandpiper Development aligns with the following General Plan goals and policies:
o Goal LU-4: Promote compact development patterns that use land efficiently, conserve resources, and support a range of transportation choices.
Finding: The subdivision’s lot layout and density efficiently utilize the 5.62-acre site while remaining within the SNH density range. The connected street network and sidewalk system encourage pedestrian travel and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicle trips for local errands.
o Policy LU-5.1: Encourage infill development on vacant or underutilized parcels within existing urbanized areas to maximize the use of public infrastructure.
Finding:industrial established an within parcel redevelops a and project The vacant residential area, utilizing existing street, water, sewer, and drainage systems. This approach maximizes the benefit of existing infrastructure and supports the City’s goals for efficient land use.
o Goal C-1: Provide a safe, efficient, and convenient circulation system that accommodates multiple modes of travel.
Finding: The subdivision incorporates street designs that meet City standards for vehicular circulation, are crosswalks Sidewalks safety. and and access, emergency pedestrian provided to ensure safe pedestrian movement throughout the neighborhood and connections to surrounding streets.
o Policy C-2.3: Require adequate emergency access in all new developments.
Finding: The subdivision design has been reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to ensure compliance with emergency vehicle access standards, including roadway widths, turning radii, and unobstructed fire lane access.
o Goal OS-1: Maintain and expand access to open space, parks, and recreational facilities.
Finding: The subdivision is located within walking and short driving distance to existing public parks. The internal sidewalks and street network facilitate pedestrian access to these recreational resources, in alignment with the General Plan’s connectivity objectives.
o Policy OS-2.2: Require new development to incorporate drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems.
Finding: Landscaping within public and private areas will utilize drought-tolerant plant materials consistent with the City’s approved plant palette and will comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 130 of 337 o Goal PS-1: Ensure that new development is provided with adequate public services and infrastructure in a timely manner.
Finding: The subdivision will connect to existing public water, sewer, and storm drainage systems. All required improvements will be installed prior to occupancy, ensuring that the development is fully served upon completion.
o Policy S-3.1:Minimize risks to life and property by avoiding development in areas with known hazards.
Finding: The project site is located outside of mapped FEMA flood zones and is not subject to significant geologic or wildfire hazards. The subdivision design meets all applicable building and safety codes to ensure protection of future residents.
o LU-6: Goal residential new that by ensuring neighborhood Promote compatibility development is designed to respect the character and scale of existing neighborhoods.
Finding: The subdivision’s lot sizes, building envelopes, and street design are compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods and provide appropriate transitions to adjacent uses through setbacks, landscaping, and street frontage orientation.
o Policy N-2.2: Minimize noise impacts from new development on adjacent sensitive uses.
Finding: The subdivision layout positions residential lots and internal circulation away from existing higher-noise areas to the extent feasible. Construction activities will comply with the City’s noise ordinance to minimize short-term impacts.
o Policy AQ-1.1:Reduce air pollution from construction and operational activities through adherence to regional and state standards.
Finding: The project will implement dust control and emission-reduction measures during construction in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules, ensuring operational compliance with air quality standards.
o Policy LU-8.4:Encourage a mix of housing types and designs to accommodate a variety of household needs.
Finding: The project’s lot configuration and development standards allow for varied single- family home designs, providing flexibility for builders and promoting visual diversity within the neighborhood.
Based on the analysis above, the project is consistent with the General Plan 2040 land use designation, development intensity standards, and applicable goals and policies.
II. Standards Consistency. Consistency with applicable objective development standards and design standards and/or design guidelines adopted by the City Council.
The City Council adopted the City of Unified Development Code (UDC) on September 21, 2022, which became effective on October 22, 2022. The following identifies land use regulations and development standards relevant and applicable to the Project and makes findings of fact regarding if and how the Project complies with them:
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 131 of 337
Section 2.04.02: Land Use Regulations
Section 2.02.02 of the City of Indio’s Unified Development Code (UDC) identifies permitted land uses within residential zoning districts and specifies the planning permit requirements for each use.
The project site is located within the Suburban Neighborhood 8 (SN-8) zoning district. The purpose of the SN-8 zone is to provide for single-family detached residential neighborhoods at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. This zone is intended to maintain a suburban residential character while accommodating a range of lot sizes, housing types compatible with single-family development, and supporting neighborhood amenities, all within a connected street network (UDC §2.02.01).
According to Table 2.02.02-1 of the UDC, single-family dwellings are a permitted use within the SN- 8 zone, subject to compliance with applicable development standards. Subdivision of land for residential purposes is processed in accordance with UDC Division 7 (Subdivision Regulations) and requires review and approval of a tentative tract map pursuant to UDC Section 7.02.02.
Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 proposes to subdivide 5.62 acres into 34 residential lots, consistent with the maximum density standard for the SN-8 zone. The subdivision design has been reviewed for compliance with applicable SN-8 development standards, including minimum lot size, lot width, setbacks, maximum building height, and open space requirements.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the allowable use types, density limits, and permit requirements of the SN-8 zoning district.
Section 2.02.03: Development Regulations
Section 2.02.03 of the Unified Development Code prescribes the development standards for residential zones. The following addresses the specified development regulations and whether the project complies or does not comply with each specified regulation:
Standard Required by Code Proposed Map
Lot and Density Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sf) 4,500 4500
Minimum Lot Width (lf) 40 41
Minimum Lot Depth (lf) 80 110
The site layout is designed to maximize lot efficiency while meeting the minimum lot size, width, and setback requirements of the SN-8 zoning. Proposed lots average approximately 4,500 square feet in area, with an average lot width of 41 feet and a lot depth of approximately 110 feet. Homes are oriented to face internal neighborhood streets, with landscaped front yards and consistent building setbacks to create a cohesive streetscape.
The overall design integrates with the surrounding built environment and provides a high-quality residential setting that aligns with the City’s development standards and design expectations for the SN-8 zone.
I. Site Design. Structures within the development and between the structures and the site relate to one another. Proposed structures and related site development improvements (e.g., access, parking, grading, etc.) relate and connect to existing development in the vicinity. The site is designed to promote efficient circulation and encourage a range of transportation
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 132 of 337 modes by providing safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists. Projects incorporate necessary utilities and service areas (e.g., refuse and recycling enclosures) such that they are compatible with the overall design of the project and minimize visual impacts.
The proposed 34 lot subdivision is designed to create a cohesive neighborhood pattern, with homes oriented toward internal streets and consistent front yard setbacks that establish a unified streetscape. The subdivision provides access from Sandpiper Avenue, Cardinal Avenue, and Bobolink Street, connecting the neighborhood to the existing public street system. Internal streets are designed with sidewalks on both sides, ensuring ADA-compliant pedestrian connectivity, while street widths accommodate both vehicles and cyclists. Each lot would be served by a future driveway and two-car garage, while landscaped parkways and walkable street edges promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. Utilities will be installed underground in compliance with City standards, and service equipment will be placed to minimize visual impacts. Refuse and recycling collection will be provided via individual containers stored within garages or side yards when not in use, maintaining compatibility with the lot and street fit to the is Grading appearance. neighborhood overall balanced configuration while minimizing disturbance to existing topography, and the arrangement of homes, streets, and open spaces integrates with surrounding residential development.
II. Streetscape. The design of streetscapes, including street trees, lighting, and pedestrian furniture, is consistent with the intended character of the area.
The subdivision includes private internal streets with sidewalks on both sides and landscaped parkways in accordance with City standards. Street trees from the City’s approved plant palette are proposed at regular intervals along internal streets. Driveway spacing and street tree placement are shown on the plans and meet City engineering and landscape standards.
III. Consistency and Compatibility. Project details, materials, signage, and landscaping, are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
The proposed subdivision map lot layout meet the applicable development standards of the SN-8 zoning district and the residential land use designation in the General Plan. The arrangement of lots, streets, and infrastructure complies with subdivision regulations and maintains required separations from adjacent properties.
IV. The project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
The project has been reviewed for compliance with applicable zoning, building, and engineering standards. and installed will utilities criteria, be City meet circulation and Access design underground. No hazardous uses are included in the project scope. Compliance with applicable regulations public development surrounding with conflict or will project the ensures not infrastructure.
Housing Element Compliance
Parcel 612-170-007 is designated Residential Medium in the City of Indio’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021–2029) and is zoned Suburban Neighborhood 8 (SN-8), which allows up to eight dwelling units per acre. The Housing Element identifies this zoning district as suitable for meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) due to its allowed residential density and development single future for lots 34 proposed subdivision The standards. family includes residences on a 5.62-acre site, resulting in a net density consistent with the maximum permitted in the SN-8 zone. The project does not displace existing housing units and would contribute to the City’s housing stock in alignment with the Housing Element’s goals and policies for facilitating new residential development within designated zones.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 133 of 337
Conclusion:
Staff finds that the findings required under Government Code Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act can be made for Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 (Case No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002). The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Indio General Plan and the Unified Development Code. The subdivision does not conflict with existing public easements for access or use of property within the subdivision boundaries. Based on the project description and applicable environmental review, the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. Implementation of the conditions of approval will ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards related to public health, safety, and welfare, and will avoid material injury to properties or improvements in the surrounding area.
Public Hearing Notice:
A public hearing notice for the project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, on September 19, 2025. A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property on September 22, 2025, consistent with Section 6.03.08 of the City of Indio Unified Development Code.
Environmental Assessment:
Environmental review for the proposed project was conducted pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). An Initial Study and CEQA Consistency Checklist (PLAN- ER-25-0019) were prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of subdividing 5.62 acres into 34 residential lots (Attachment 4). The review determined that the project is consistent with the land use designation and development density analyzed in the certified City of Indio General Plan 2040 Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015081021). Based on this determination, the City found that the project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the certified General Plan EIR remains sufficient for environmental review of this project, and no further environmental documentation is required.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Current FY Financial
Impact:
In current year budget: N/A
Current FY General
Fund Impact:
Budget adjustment: No
Next FY Financial
Impact:
Strategic Objective: Economic Opportunity
Source of funds: Fund-Org-Object
Reference:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 Resolution No 10520 TTM 34668
Attachment 3 Vicinity Map
Attachment 4 Tract Map No. 34668
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 134 of 337 Attachment 5 Initial Study Checklist
Attachment 2 PC Resolution No. 2116
APPROVAL(S):
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney Approved - 25 Sep 2025 Ruby D. Walla, Director of Finance Approved - 25 Sep 2025 Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager Approved - 25 Sep 2025
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 135 of 337 1 RESOLUTION NO. 10520
RESOLUTION NO. 10520 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SANDPIPER TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34668 (CASE FILE NO. TTM-24-0002) PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 156 (SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS) OF THE INDIO CITY CODE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE
INTERSECTION OF BLUEJAY STREET AND SANDPIPER AVENUE ON
APPROXIMATELY 5.62 ACRES (APN: 612-170-007)
WHEREAS, Joy Santos of Fiero Engineering, submitted an application for a Tentative Tract Map, and Planning Review with associated environmental documentation, proposing the development of thirty-four single family homes on 5.62 acres of vacant land located near the intersection of Bluejay Street and Sandpiper Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 612-170-007).
The project will also include landscaping, internal private streets, and associated site improvements (hereafter “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Tract Map will create thirty-four residential lots; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 34668, is being created for residential purposes; and
WHEREAS, approval of Tentative Parcel Map 34668 is considered a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, approval of Tentative Tract Map 34668 was reviewed under the has been conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City has determined that the project is consistent with the development density and land use designation evaluated in the certified City of Indio General Plan 2040 Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015081021); and
WHEREAS, environmental review for the Project was conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A CEQA Consistency Checklist (Case File No. PLAN-ER-25-0019) was prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential environmental effects. The review determined that the Project is consistent with the development assumptions and land use designation analyzed in the certified City of Indio General Plan 2040 Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015081021). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no further environmental documentation is required; and
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 136 of 337 1 WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with and intended to implement the vision of the Unified Development Code and the General Plan 2040 pertaining to land use patterns, intensities, densities, building and site design and public right-of-way improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Map Act also requires that, prior to any map approval, the City must find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement of any tentative map, is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and that the site is physically suitable for that type of development and the proposed density, and that the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems, conflict with easements, or cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat (Government Code Section 66473.5); and
WHEREAS, the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan 2040 and meets the Suburban Neighborhood High (SNH) land use designation requirements, and is consistent with the requirements outlined in the Unified Development Code; and WHEREAS, at the September 10, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the City of Indio Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tract Map, Planning Review, and associated environmental documentation for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Sandpiper Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing to consider the Tentative Tract Map, and Environmental Assessment (Case File No. PLAN-ER-25-0019) was issued in accordance with Section 6.03.08 of the Indio Municipal Code and Public Resources Code Section 21092, inclusive of the publication on September 19, 2025, of a legal public hearing notice which was published in the Desert Sun, the City’s newspaper of record and mailing of a public hearing notice to a certified list of property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties on September 22, 2025; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion, the City Council approved this Resolution for the Sandpiper Tentative Tract Map (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002) with the motion vote outcome specified in the meeting minutes for the October 1, 2025, City Council meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES, FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and correct, are incorporated into the following findings by reference, and constitute a material part of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 137 of 337 1 SECTION 2. Map Findings. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, including the staff report and written and verbal testimony, the City Council hereby finds:
a. Tentative Tract Map 34668 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002) complies with the Subdivision Map Act.
b. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the Project is proposing to develop thirty-four single family homes on 5.62 acres of vacant land and is consistent with the General Plan 2040 and the Unified Development Code.
c. The design or improvement of the proposed project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning district in that the proposed project will be in conformance with the General Plan land use designation of the Suburban Neighborhood High (SNH) land use designation and the Suburban Neighborhood 8 Unified Development Code zoning designation. d. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that adequate access and infrastructure exist or will be provided. Furthermore, the site has no topographical constraints.
e. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the project, a thirty-four lot single family development, and is consistent with the General Plan 2040 and the Unified Development Code.
f. The design of the residential lots and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the Project Site is surrounded by heavily disturbed lands and there is no presence of fish or wildlife or their habitat on this property. There are no watercourses, streams, or wetlands present on the property. The Project is therefore not likely to cause substantial environmental damage within the City and the proposed location provides no fish or significant wildlife habitat. g. The design of the project or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that adequate sewer and water systems will be available to the thirty-four resultant residential parcels. The parcels have the necessary infrastructure to adequately serve the proposed residential development, and associated improvements and all proposed uses as allowed by the UDC that regulates the Project Site. h. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed project area in that public utilities for electricity, water, sewer, telecommunications, and gas service have all been assessed for availability. There are no known public easements
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 138 of 337 1 traversing the subject site that would be adversely affected by the Project.
Therefore, the parcel subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired or required by the public at large, for access through or use of the property.
SECTION 3. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby APPROVES the Sandpiper Tentative Tract Map 34668 (Case File No. PLAN- TTP-24-0002). The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance to ALL conditions of approval, listed in the Resolution. Failure to demonstrate compliance with these conditions of approval may result in the delay of the proposed use or the rescinding of the City of Indio’s project approval. Where the term “Applicant” is used in any condition of approval, this term shall apply also to the Property owner, any developer, or any success in the interest of the Applicant. It is the Applicant's or Applicant’s successor in interest responsibility to fully comply with the conditions of approval unless subsequently modified in accordance with the City’s required processes and procedures:
A. General Conditions of Approval:
The Applicant shall demonstrate full compliance to the following conditions of approval.
The relevant City department or division or outside agency is noted in parentheses in the event that there are questions or additional information needed regarding a condition of approval. The Applicant shall adhere to and comply with each of these conditions, as set forth herein, as applicable and when necessary, and in no event later than the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
1. Where the term “Applicant” is used herein, this term shall apply also to the Property owner, any developer, or any successor in the interest of the Applicant. (Planning Division).
2. Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002) approval granted by this Resolution shall expire two years after its approval, or as otherwise prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act and City of Indio Unified Development Code. An application for time extension shall be filed at least 45 days before the tentative map is due to expire. The Director of Community Development may grant a one-year administrative extension of time provided that the property is properly maintained and free of vegetation and debris. The City Council may approve additional extensions provided that the total extensions do not exceed the maximum time frames prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act.
3. In the event of any legal challenge, claim, administrative proceeding, or litigation arising from or related to the approval, construction, or operation of the project, including but not limited to any concurrent legislative acts, approvals, agreements or environmental determinations (“Project Approvals and Operations”) the Applicant shall, at its own expense, defend the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and attorneys (“Indemnified Parties”) against such legal
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 139 of 337 1 challenge, claim, administrative proceeding, or litigation. In addition, the Applicant shall reimburse the City for the City’s cost of defending any such legal challenge, claim, administrative proceeding, or litigation, including, but not limited to, all attorney’s fees (including the City Attorney’s fees), legal costs, expert fees and costs, and all other expenses incurred by the City in connection with the legal challenge, claim, administrative proceeding, or litigation. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs) arising from or in connection with the Project Approvals and Operations. This indemnification shall cover all claims, regardless of whether they arise from the negligence of the Indemnified Parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City in any such defense as the City may reasonably request and may not resolve such challenge without the agreement of the City. The Applicant agrees to hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the Project Approvals and Operations. This hold harmless obligation shall apply even if the claims, damages, losses, or Page 18 of 234 expenses arise out of the negligence or fault of the Indemnified Parties. If Applicant fails to perform any of the obligations described in this paragraph, the City shall have the right, among other remedies, to revoke the approvals for the Project without any liability to the Applicant. In order to ensure compliance with this condition, within twenty (20) days after notification by the City, the Applicant shall deposit with the City cash in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), satisfactory in form to the City Attorney, guaranteeing indemnification or reimbursement to the City of all costs related to any action triggering the obligations of this condition. If the City is required to draw on that cash or security to indemnify or reimburse itself for such costs, the Applicant shall restore the deposit to its original amount within thirty (30) calendar days after notice from the City. Additionally, if at any time the City Attorney determines that an additional deposit is necessary to secure the obligations of this section, the Applicant shall provide such additional security within thirty (30) calendar days of notice from the City Attorney. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal challenge, claim, administrative proceeding or litigation to which the above obligations apply and the Applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in the defense.
4. The Applicant shall ensure that development shall occur substantially as shown on the Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002).
5. The Applicant shall cause to be recorded against the property these and all related conditions of approval with the Riverside County Recorder, within thirty (30) calendar days of the final approval.
6. The Applicant shall, within thirty (30) calendar days after the City Council adopts the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 34668 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24- 0002), submit to the Community Development Director written consent to all of the conditions of approval contained in the Resolution. Tentative Tract Map No. 34468 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-24-0002) shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written consent is submitted to the City within the 30-calendar day period.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 140 of 337 1 Prior to Final Map Approval:
7. Applicant shall submit a copy of the Final Map to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for their review and shall obtain a clearance letter from CVWD prior to recordation of the Final Map
8. Tentative Tract Map shall be submitted along with the following items: a. Title Report b. Soils Report c. Preliminary Grading Plan (Topo/contours on map) d. Preliminary Hydrology Report
9. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items: a. Final Tract Map Page 19 of 234 b. Title Report (updated within the last 60 days) c. Final Map Closure Calculations d. AutoCAD & GIS Shape Files for Final Tract Map e. All back-up information for map references (easement documents, maps, etc.)
10.Final Tract Map shall include: a. Street Names b. Subdivision Improvement Agreement c. Improvement Bonds
11.Applicant shall provide a 10-foot public utility easement on both sides of the proposed streets, as well as across the full width of the streets
12.Applicant shall form a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District for the maintenance of: a. All interior and exterior common areas including landscaping b.
Graffiti abatement for the interior and exterior or the preceding areas. c. Maintenance of the retention basin landscaping.
13.The Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map.
SECTION 4.The City Council Secretary shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1 st day of October 2025.
GLENN MILLER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 141 of 337 1 SABDI SANCHEZ, MMC
DIRECTOR OF CITY CLERK SERVICES
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 142 of 337 Project Site
612-170-007
VICINITY MAP
- Project Site
8/27/2025, 3:34:12 PM
0 0.09 0.180.04 mi
0 0.1 0.20.05 km
1:4,765
SANDPIPER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN-TTM-24-0002 & PLAN-PRD-24-0015
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 143 of 337 Tentative Tract Map1
R:\AutoCAD\Projects\17Y-001 Yaghi\dwg\17y1ttm01.dwg, TTM-01, 9/6/2024 9:26:05 AM
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 144 of 337 Preliminary Grading Plan2
R:\AutoCAD\Projects\17Y-001 Yaghi\dwg\17y1ttm01.dwg, PGP, 9/6/2024 11:43:59 AM
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 145 of 337 SANDPIPER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY Lead Agency: CITY OF INDIO Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Mall P.O. Drawer 1788 Indio, CA 92202 Environmental Consultant: DKA PLANNING June 2025
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 146 of 337 2 APPENDIX H: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: June 2, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: a. Abraham Yaghi and Amin Mokaddem b. 112 East Chapman Avenue, Suite D; Orange, CA 92286 2. Address of project: a. 40 Sandpiper Avenue; Indio, CA Assessor’s Block and Lot Number: Tract No. 4007, Lots 1-40; APN 612-170-007 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this pro-ject: a. Amin Mokeddem and Abrahim Yaghi b. 112 East Chapman Avenue, Suite D; Orange, CA 92866 c. (714) 997-9120 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: a. Case # TTM-24-002 and Design Review Case #PLAN-PRD-24-0015 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: a. City of Indio permits (e.g., planning, grading, building), Imperial Irrigation District, Indio Water Authority, Southern California Gas, Riverside County Fire Depart-ment, Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, Valley Sanitary District sewer per-mits. 6. Existing General Plan/zoning district: a. Suburban Neighborhood High/Suburban Neighborhood-8 (SN-8) 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): a. Subdivision of 5.61-acre project site for 40 single-family residences and associ-ated improvements. These would include but not be limited to a paved roadway, concrete walkways, driveways, retention basin, and underground utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. a. 5.61 acres. 9. Square footage. a. 108,203 square feet of residential floor area and 17,599 square feet of garages 10. Number of floors of construction. a. Two stories of development. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. a. 80 total parking spaces (two per residence) 12. Attach plans. a. Attached 13. Proposed scheduling. a. 12 months of construction with three overlapping phases starting October 2025. 14. Associated projects.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 147 of 337 3 a. Paved roadway, concrete walkways, driveways, retention basin, and under-ground utilities. 15. Anticipated incremental development. a. The Project would be constructed over twelve months, with the paving of the Sandpiper Avenue extension connecting to Bobolink Street, along with the reten-tion basin and underground utilities. The Project’s 40 residences would include 14 residences at the western portion of the site. 16 residences at the center of the Site, and ten residences at the eastern portion of the Site. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. a. Twenty-one of the residences (Plan-A) would have 2,564 square feet of living area with a 430 square-foot garage. The remaining nineteen residences (Plan-B) would have 2,861 square feet of living area and a 451 square-foot garage. b. House prices are expected to be $500,000. c. Smaller units are expected to be sold to couples while larger units are designed for families of up to six persons. 17. If commercial, indicate the type; whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented; square footage of sales area; and loading facilities. a. Not applicable. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. a. Not applicable. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated oc-cupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. a. Not applicable 20. If the project involves a variance, condition use or rezoning application, state this and in-dicate clearly why the application is required. a. None required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alter-ation of ground contours. a. No, the Project Site is flat and would only require fine grading, with changes to ground contours. 22. Change in scenic view or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. a. No, the proposed two-story homes would be compatible with the one- and two-story residences in the adjacent project site is a flat site 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. a. No, the project is a residential development of single-family homes that would be compatible with adjacent single-family residences that are also two stories in height. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. a. No, the redevelopment of the project site would eliminate any litter and debris as-sociated with the vacant lot and would replace it with standard single-family resi-dences that would manage solid waste and litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. a. No, the Project is a residential subdivision that would not have heavy-duty equip-ment capable of generating smoke, fumes, or odors and would not include pro-cesses that disturb unpaved surfaces.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 148 of 337 4 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality of quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. a. No, the residential subdivision will not alter stormwater drainage patterns in the relatively flat neighborhood. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. a. No, the Proposed Project is a residential subdivision with no major sources of noise or groundborne vibration (e.g., heavy-duty equipment). 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. a. No, the Project Site is flat and has no meaningful slope. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flamma-bles or explosives. a. No, the vacant lot would be redeveloped with a residential subdivision that would not include sources of hazardous materials. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). The Indio Police Department has identified 25 calls for service near the Project Site to date this year (including 21 from residences on Cardinal Avenue) at the headquarters at 46800 Jackson Street, which is 3,500 feet northwest of the Project Site. This represents an average of 0.17 calls per day from the area.1 Based on Indio’s crime rate of 2,001 incidents per 100,000 people, which includes a violent crime rate of 336.2 per 100,000 people and a property crime rate of 1,664.8 per 100,000 people, the Project would gener-ate 2.4 total crimes annually (0.4 violent crimes and 2 property crimes), assuming an av-erage household size of three persons. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which together with the River-side County Fire Department, provides services in Indio, Riverside County Fire Depart-ment has identified two vegetative fires, eleven structure fires to date this year at the fire station 86 on Jackson Street, 0.9 miles west of the Project Site.2 National data indicates that fire departments respond to 3.9 fire-related incidents and 64.2 medical emergencies per 100 people annually. For 120 residents, this would result in approximately 4.7 fire-related calls and 77 medical emergency calls per year. Demand for water supply and sewer services would come from the Indio Water Authority and Valley Sanitation District. Following initial consultation with both agencies, additional engineering details will help both agencies confirm there is capacity to serve the proposed residences on the Project Site. 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) a. No, the Project Site would include 40 single-family residences that would result in incremental increases in fossil fuel consumption. 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. a. No, the Proposed Project is not part of a larger project. 1 City of Indio Police Department; Events Details Report, Calls for Service Near Sandpiper Avenue 010125-052125. 2 City of Indio Police Department; Events Details Report, Calls for Service Near Sandpiper Avenue 010125-052125.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 149 of 337 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topogra-phy, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. De-scribe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photo-graphs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. a. The Project Site is a flat 5.61-acre parcel located in an area designated as a “Ur-ban and Rural Developed” and is not identified as having any farmland value in the City’s General Plan. It is largely an unpaved site with no meaningful plants save for some mature trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the Site, includ-ing bottlebrush buckeyes (Aesculus parviflora) that grow as large, mounded shrubs. It is not identified as a CVMSHCP biological corridor or linkage and has no stream, canal, ditch, or other body of water or wetland. The site includes loam soils, with a mix of sand, silt, and clay. The General plan identifies the site as having Gilman fine sandy loam (0-2 percent) and Indio, very fine sandy loam soils that are found in 20 percent of the City and 60 percent of the Planning Area for the General Plan as noted in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan update (page 4.6-15). These types of soils have erosion potential, but ex-hibit good drainage characteristics due to their sand content while retaining some moisture due to the silt and clay components. This balance allows for adequate water filtration and drainage while providing some water retention for on-site landscaping. It is vacant of any manmade improvements or structures and is lo-cated in an area with “Moderate” prehistoric/ethnohistoric cultural resources in the City’s General Plan. It is not identified as having any previously identified and potential historic resources in the City’s General Plan. Like most of the City, it is located in an area with High potential for sensitive paleontological resources. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plant and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commer-cial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). At-tach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. a. The Project Site is surrounded by flat terrain, developed with single-family and multi-family residential subdivisions that are generally one- and two-stories in height. Like the Project Site, the surrounding properties are in an area desig-nated “Urban and Rural Developed” by the General Plan and does not have any farmland value. It is not identified as a CVMSHCP biological corridor or linkage and has no stream, canal, ditch, or other body of water or wetland. The area is also characterized by loam soils, with a mix of sand, silt, and clay. The neighbor-hood is located in an area with “Moderate” prehistoric/ethnohistoric cultural re-sources in the City’s General Plan. It is not identified as having any previously identified and potential historic resources in the City’s General Plan. Like most of the City, it is located in an area with High potential for sensitive paleontological resources.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 150 of 337 6 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: ____________________________ Signature: ________________________________ For: Amine Mokeddem and Abrahim Yaghi
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 151 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI 40 SANDPIPER RESIDENTIAL PROJECTAPN 612-170-007
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN B
PHASE-01PHASE-02PHASE-03
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 152 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:
CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023
XXX
1
2 3
4 5
XXX XXX
A
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
Initial Study Corrections
5-21-25
XXX XXX
XXX XXX
Copyright-2023
expressly reserves its common
law copyright and other
property rights in these plans.
these plans are not to be
reproduced, changed or copied
in any form or manner
whatsoever, nor are they to be
assigned to any third party,
without first obtaining the
written permission and consent
of Shucri Yaghi Consulting
Engineers.
112 E. Chapman Ave.
Suite#D
Orange Ca 92866
Tel. (714) 997-9120
Fax. (714) 774-3676
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 153 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN B
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 154 of 337
LOFFCABINET/SHELVES
MASTERBEDROOM
BEDROOM-1LINEN
BEDROOM-1
MASTERBATH
BATH
LINENLINEN
2-CAR GARAGESITTING
GUESTBATHHALL
PORCH
POWDERGUESTBEDROOMLAUNDRY
LIVINGROOMKITCHENDINING
DESKW.I.CCABINET
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 155 of 337 2-CAR GARAGESITTING
POWDER
PORCH
LIVINGROOMKITCHENDININGPANTRY
UP
CABINETSTORAGE
MASTERBEDROOMMASTERBATHHERCLOSETHISCLOSET
BEDROOM-1CABINET
BEDROOM-2
BEDROOM-1
LOFFDN
BATH
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 156 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHI Match LineMatch Line
Match LineMatch Line
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 157 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHISINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN ASINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN BGROUP-01
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 158 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHISINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN ASINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN BGROUP-01
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 159 of 337
ISSUES & REVISIONS
SHEET #:
TITLE:
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION:CITY SUBMITTAL DATE:
STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
07-10-2023XXX
1
2345XXXXXXAXXXXXXXXXXXXInitial Study Corrections 5-21-25 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Copyright-2023expressly reserves its commonlaw copyright and otherproperty rights in these plans.these plans are not to bereproduced, changed or copiedin any form or mannerwhatsoever, nor are they to beassigned to any third party,without first obtaining thewritten permission and consentof Shucri Yaghi ConsultingEngineers. 112 E. Chapman Ave.Suite#DOrange Ca 92866Tel. (714) 997-9120Fax. (714) 774-3676CONSULTING ENGINEERSSHUCRI (CHUCK) I. YAGHISINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN ASINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - PLAN BGROUP-03
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 160 of 337 L
R.E.T.
PEROVSKIA SPP / RUSSIAN SAGE
ENGLISH LAVENDER, ROSEMARY 'BLUE SPIRES',
LITTLE JOHN BOTTLE BRUSH, MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
L
SENECIO SERPENS / BLUE CHALK STICKS
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE,
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
PLAN 1
GC / VINES
PLAN 2
See Plan
NASSELLA TENUSSIMA / FEATHER GRASS
PLAN B TYP. REVERSE
A
40 SANDPIPER
RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
INDIO, CA
APN :
612-170-007
L
AMINE MOKEDDEM
&
ABRAHIM YAGHI
ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 997-9120
OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' - SWAN HILL OLIVE
TREES
RED YUCCA, RIO BRAVO RANGER, GAURA,
LITTLE REV FLAX LILLY
MEXICAN FEATHER GRASS, BLUE CHALK STICKS,
CAT'S CLAW VINE
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE
PLANS
1 PARKINSONIA X 'DESERT MUSEUM / DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE L
L
L
L
SALVIA 'ALLEN CHICKERING' / ALLEN CHICKERING SAGE
PLAN B TYPICAL PLAN A TYPICAL
L
November 27, 2024
L
L
L
L
A
B
B
A
B
A
PLAN A TYP. REVERSE
& SIDE YARD FRONTAGE
LEUCOPHYLLUM L. 'RIO BRAVO' / RIO BRAVO RANGER
L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA / LITTLE REV FLAX LILLY
B
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS / BLUE GRAMA
WUCOLS
TS
EAT
IFO LCA
A
OF RNI
Signature
Expiration Date
Date
Rober E. T
t
aft No. 3669
LICENSED
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT
03-31-2024
Call:
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
Underground Service Alert
RE OFB
AC
LL U DIG
E YO
811
© ROBERT TAFT + ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2023
THESE DRAWINGS AND THE
ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS AS
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ARE THE
EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF ROBERT
TAFT + ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE, AND MAY NOT BE
REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT
WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E
Temecula Valley Office:
36275 Avenida De Acacias
Temecula, California 92592
Ph.: 951.676.5688
Orange County Office:
5331 Stonehedge Court
Yorba Linda, California 92886
Ph.: 949.385.1254
Ca. Lic. No. 3669
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.RobertTaftandAssociates.com
ROBERT TAFT + ASSOCIATES
Sheet Title
Plans
DateRevision
Project
No.
SheetDrawn
Date
Scale
Job No.
Seal
of
Owner
12/2/2024
L-1
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 161 of 337
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 162 of 337
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 163 of 337
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 164 of 337
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 165 of 337 7 Statement of Reasons for Exemption from Additional Environmental Review and 15183 Checklist (Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15183) Project Description: The proposed project is located on approximately 5.61 acres east of the intersection of Bluejay Street and Sandpiper Avenue in the City of Indio. The project site is vacant and undeveloped. The property can be identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 612-170-007. The project would be located on an irregularly-shaped site generally between Bluejay Street to the west, Cardinal Avenue to the north, Bobolink Street to the east, and Den-ver Avenue to the south. The project site is surrounded by single family residential homes to the north and west, with multifamily residential homes (Fred Young Farm La-bor Center) to the southeast and east. The project includes the subdivision of 40 lots for residential development, ranging from 4,500 square feet to 5,650 square feet in area. A 41st lot (Lot A) would be devoted to a retention basin. The project proposes to develop 40 residences over at least twelve months. Twenty-one of the residences (Plan-A) would have 2,564 square feet of living area with a 430 square-foot garage. The remaining nineteen residences (Plan-B) would have 2,861 square feet of living area and a 451 square-foot garage. The project also proposes a paved roadway that would serve as an extension of Sand-piper Avenue and link to Bobolink Street at the eastern portion of the Project Site. The project would also include concrete walkways, driveways, underground utilities, and the retention basis at the southeast corner of the Project Site. Access to the site will occur along the surrounding rights-of-way, Sandpiper Avenue (west) and Bobolink Street (east). Entitlements for the property include Tentative Tract Map TTM-24-002 and Design Re-view PLAN-PRD-24-0015. The TTM identifies the project property boundary, proposed building setbacks, and street dedication, and Design Review will review the proposed architectural plans. General Plan Land Use and Zoning The General Plan land use and zoning designations for the property is Suburban Neigh-borhood High and Suburban Neighborhood-8 (SN-8), respectively. Other public agencies whose approval is required: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 166 of 337 8 • Indio Water Authority • Riverside County Fire Department • Valley Sanitary District • Imperial Irrigation District • Southern California Gas • Spectrum or Frontier cable provider • Spectrum or other landline phone provider • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 167 of 337 9 APPENDIX G: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 24-0-02 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Indio; 100 Civic Center Drive; Indio, CA 92201 3. Contact person and phone number: Nikolas Guitron, Assistant Planner; (760) 391-4064 4. Project Location: 40 Sandpiper Avenue; Indio, CA 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Amine Mokeddem and Abrahim Yaghi; 112 East Chapman Avenue, Suite D; Orange, CA 92866 6. General plan designation: Suburban Neighborhood High 7. Zoning: Suburban Neighborhood-8 (SN-8) 8. Description of project: Subdivision of 5.61-acre project site for 40 single-family resi-dences and associated improvements. These would include but not be limited to a paved roadway, concrete walkways, driveways, retention basin, and underground utili-ties. 9. Surrounding uses and setting: The Project Site is surrounded by single-family and multi-family residential subdivisions that are generally one- and two-stories in height. The pro-ject site is surrounded by single family residential homes to the north and west, with mul-tifamily residential homes (Fred Young Farm Labor Center) to the southeast and east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: City of Indio permits (e.g., planning, zone change, grading, building) and Valley Sanitary District sewer permits. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the pro-ject area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? No, no California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the pro-ject area have requested consultation. During the development of the City’s General Plan update in 2004, the City notified Cali-fornia Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City’s jurisdiction prior to adoption of the General Plan, pursuant to SB 18. This notification went to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission list. The City contacted the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Indian Village, and Caba-zon Band of Mission Indians. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan 2040, adopted in 2019, as it would be located in the Suburban Neighborhoods General Plan land use designation, which specifies an allowable density of up to eight dwelling units per acre. The Proposed Project would add 40 residences to a 5.61-acre Project Site and a population of 126 per-sons based on the 3.14 persons per household density per residence.3 This would repre-sent a density of 7.1 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan. Since the Project’s underlying land use designation and zoning standards were included in the City’s input to 3 Southern California Association of Governments, 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, growth forecasts data for the City of Indio, 2019 data.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 168 of 337 10 the 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, the residential growth on the Project Site was included in the region’s transportation plan and air quality attainment plan. If a tribe requests consultation, the City was required to address the potential impacts of the General Plan on any sacred sites, Native American lands, or traditional cultural resources. The City was obligated to document and consider tribal input on policies, land use designations, or implementation programs to preserve or protect resources. On July 6, 2015, the Morongo Band requested consultation on a government–to-government basis for all projects within the City of Indio’s jurisdiction that have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. On October 11, 2018, the Jamul Indian Village of California confirmed that the General Plan update would not be within the boundaries of the recognized Jamul Indian Reservation and did not request consultation. On December 9, 2015, the Agua Caliente tribe requested that their Tribal Historic Preservation Officer be provided with updates or status reports of the General Plan as it progressed. Because the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts on tribal cultural resources is consistent with those analyzed with the adopted General Plan and Program EIR, the Project is not required to undertaken separate tribal consultation. However, under AB 52, which was enacted in 2014, additional tribal consultation requirements under CEQA were required for development projects. Unlike SB 18, which applies to General Plan and policy-level actions, AB 52 applies to discretionary projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. Under AB 52, the City must notify tribes that have requested consultation on CEQA projects within 14 days of determining a project application is complete. If requested, the agency must consult with the tribe to avoid or mitigate significant impacts. However, because prior consultation and mitigation in the General Plan Program EIR already adequately addressed tribal resources concerns, such additional consultation under AB 52 was not required.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 169 of 337 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED The environmental topics checked below would be potentially affected by this project in an adverse manner, involving at least one Environmental Issue/Significance Criteria that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the analysis in the following Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. All environmental factors are discussed below regardless of potential impact. Aesthetics and Scenic Resources Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 170 of 337 12 AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant infill location surrounded by residential development of a similar scale and would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Less than significant impact. The project is a single-family residential development on a vacant infill location that is not located within a state scenic highway. As a result, the Project would not damage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a scenic highway or substantially damage scenic or historic resources. c) Less than significant impact. The project site is a vacant infill location surrounded by residential development of a similar scale. The development of this site would be two-stories in height with a development density consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and adjacent residential development. As such, it would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Less than significant impact. The project would include single-family residences that are two-stories in height with a development density consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and adjacent residential development. The project would be designed to address the Palomar Observatory (located 70 miles southwest) and its regulations that reduce light pollution by implementing responsible outdoor lighting practices in line with Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (Ordinance 655). This includes using fully shielded, downward-facing fixtures for all exterior lighting, minimizing the use of bright, blue-rich LED lights, and adhering to curfews that limit non-essential outdoor lighting during overnight hours. Lighting would be limited to what is necessary for safety and security, and landscape or decorative lighting should be used sparingly. As such, it would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 171 of 337 13 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to 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 (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Protection (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) No Impact. The Project Site is not designated as prime or unique farmland or farmland or Statewide importance, as illustrated in Figure 4.2-1 of the General Plan Update EIR. b) No Impact. The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not associated with any Williamson Act contract, as illustrated in Figure 4.2-2 of the General Plan Update EIR. c) No Impact. The Project , Site is not designated as having timberland resources. d) No Impact. The Project Site does not have any forest land of significance. e) No Impact. The Project Site would not directly or indirectly result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or convert forest land to non-forest use.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 172 of 337 14 AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Air Quality Technical Report, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the growth forecast for the City of Indio that is accommodated in the region’s air quality attainment plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Air Quality Technical Report, the Proposed Project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants during project construction and operation (Tables 1 and 2). As a result, the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 173 of 337 15 Table 1 Daily Construction Emissions Construction Phase Year Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Regional Total 13.2 39.3 41.9 0.1 9.8 5.6 Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Localized Emissions 13.2 16.3 17.9 <0.1 3.5 2.0 Localized Significance Threshold N/A 304 2,292 N/A 14 8 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source: DKA Planning, 2025 based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 model runs. LSTs represent 5-acre sites with receptors within 25 meters of the Project Site in the Coachella Valley source receptor area. Estimates reflect the peak summer or winter season, whichever is higher. Modeling sheets included in the Technical Appendix. Table 2 Daily Operations Emissions Emissions Source Daily Emissions (Pounds Per Day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 3.1 <0.1 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy Sources <0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Mobile Sources 1.3 0.9 7.9 <0.1 1.4 0.4 Regional Total 4.4 1.2 10.3 <0.1 1.4 0.4 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Localized Emissions 3.1 0.1 2.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Localized Significance Threshold N/A 304 2,292 N/A 4 2 Exceed Threshold? N/A No No N/A No No Source: DKA Planning, 2025 based on CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 model runs (included in the Technical Appendix). LSTs represent 5-acre sites with receptors within 25 meters of the Project Site in the Coachella Valley source receptor area. Estimates reflect the peak summer season.Totals reflect the summer season maximum and may not add up due to rounding. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Air Quality Technical Report, the Proposed Project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants during project construction and operation (Tables 1 and 2). As a result, the Project would not 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. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Air Quality Technical Report, the Proposed Project would not exceed the Localized Significance Thresholds for projects in the Coachella Valley source receptor area (Table 1). As a result, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors (e.g., local residences) to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Air Quality Technical Report, the Proposed Project is a residential development that would not have typical
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 174 of 337 16 sources of odor. As such, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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? a) No Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, development Citywide is re-quired to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations that concern the preser-vation of biological resources, including the CVMSHCP, MBTA, and CEQA. As such, the Pro-posed Project would be required to comply with the MBTA, which would ensure that all active mi-
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 175 of 337 17 gratory bird nests are avoided during project construction. Additionally, future development lo-cated in and adjacent to Conservation Areas would be required to comply with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, which include regulations to minimize edge effects from drain-age, toxics, lighting, noise, and invasive species. The Project Site is not located within any of the City’s Conservation Areas. Disturbance of any sensitive species would be subject to species-spe-cific Conservation Objectives and Strategies, which would ensure that populations of sensitive species are adequately conserved through protection, monitoring, and adaptive management strategies. b) No Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, all development is required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations that concern the preserva-tion of sensitive vegetation communities, including the CVMSHCP. The Project Site is not located within any of the City’s Conservation Areas. As such, the Proposed Project would not have a sig-nificant impact on sensitive natural communities in any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project Site is not located within any federally-protected wetland under Section 404, as illustrated in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR Figure 4.4-2. Therefore, it would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) No Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, all development is required to comply with applicable federal, state, and regional laws and regulations that concern the preser-vation of significant wildlife movement corridors, including the CVMSHCP, the MBTA, and CEQA. The Project Site is not located within any of the City’s CVMSHCP Biological Corridors and Link-ages, as illustrated in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR Figure 4.4-3. As such, the Pro-posed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migra-tory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the City Municipal Code, Chapter 98.09, herit-age trees can only be removed when the public interest served by removal outweighs the value of preservation and heritage status. Additionally, Chapter 98.09 prohibits the cutting, damaging, carving, transplanting, pruning, or root pruning of any public tree, unless a permit has been is-sued. Tree topping, heading back, stubbing, or pollarding of public trees is also prohibited. Devel-opment facilitated by the GPU would be required to adhere to the City ordinance protecting herit-age trees, which would ensure that heritage trees are not damaged or removed unless properly permitted. There are no other adopted policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As the Project Site does not include any heritage trees, the Proposed Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) No Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, all development within the Con-servation Areas identified by the CVMSHCP would be subject to specific Conservation Objectives and Strategies for species and habitats. The Project Site is not located within any of the City’s
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 176 of 337 18 Conservation Areas. As such, 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.
CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations that concern the preservation of prehistoric or historic resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act, California Public Resources Code. The Project Site is vacant of any human improvements and is not home to any prehistoric or historic resources. As such the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations that concern the preservation of prehistoric or historic resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act, California Public Resources Code. The Project Site is vacant of any human improvements and is not home to any archaeological resources. As such the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a archaeological resource. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR Figure 4.5-1, the Project Site is located in an area with Moderate-High sensitivity to prehistoric and ethnohis-toric resources. The Proposed Project could result in significant impacts should grading occur where there is high paleontological sensitivity, including undisturbed deposits of the Mecca For-mation, Palm Spring Formation, Canebrake Conglomerate, Older Quaternary Lake Sediments, and Ocotillo Conglomerate. Construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological resources. However, the Project Site
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 177 of 337 19 is not located in a High sensitivity area. There the 2019 EIR’s mitigation measure MM-CR-4 re-quiring the conduction of a paleontological field survey or field monitoring in areas of high sensi-tivity as well as areas where no sensitivity mapping has occurred would not apply. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR Figure 4.5-1, the Project Site is located in an area with Moderate-High sensitivity to prehistoric and ethnohis-toric resources. The Proposed Project could result in significant impacts should grading occur where there is high paleontological sensitivity, including undisturbed deposits of the Mecca For-mation, Palm Spring Formation, Canebrake Conglomerate, Older Quaternary Lake Sediments, and Ocotillo Conglomerate. Construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological resources. However, the Project Site is not located in a High sensitivity area. There the 2019 EIR’s mitigation measure MM-CR-4 re-quiring the conduction of a paleontological field survey or field monitoring in areas of high sensi-tivity as well as areas where no sensitivity mapping has occurred would not apply.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to 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?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 178 of 337 20 d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations pertaining to seismic hazards, including the CBC, Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Chapter 162 of the City’s Municipal Code (which outlines the grading requirements for development activities in the City of Indio). Ad-ditionally, while the Project Site is located in a High liquefaction susceptibility zone (per Figure 4-6.4 of the 2019 EIR), it would be required to adhere to the GPU policies and applicable state laws and local regulations; therefore, potential seismic hazard impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations pertaining to soil ero-sion, including the CBC, Chapter 152 and 155 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the require-ments related to soil erosion and dust control, as well as Chapter 162 outlining the grading re-quirements for development activities. Adherence to General Plan Policy CE-5.1 would ensure that grading impacts are minimized in order to limit soil erosion from wind, water and other geo-logic hazards. Otherwise, the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the GPU policies and applicable state laws and local regulations; therefore, potential soil erosion impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations including the CBC, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the requirements related to geologic instability, Chapter 162 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the grading and information requirements for development activities in the City of Indio. As noted in Figure 4.6-2 of the 2019 EIR, the Project Site is located on GbA, Gilman fine sandy loam with 0 to 5% slopes. Otherwise, the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the GPU policies and applicable state laws and local regula-tions; therefore, the potential landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse impacts associated would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations pertaining to expan-sive soils, including the CBC. City ordinances and established development and engineering standards and codes would help minimize risks in conjunction with future development related to expansive soils. Therefore, potential expansive soil impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 179 of 337 21 e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations including the CBC, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the requirements related to geologic instability, Chapter 162 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the grading and information requirements for development activities in the City of Indio. As noted in Figure 4.6-2 of the 2019 EIR, the Project Site is located on GbA, Gilman fine sandy loam with 0 to 5% slopes. Otherwise, the Proposed Project will be required to adhere to the GPU policies and applicable state laws and local regula-tions; therefore, the potential landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse impacts associated would be less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 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? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Greenhouse Gases Technical Report, the Proposed Project would generate about 411 metric tons of CO2e annually (Table 3). This level of emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment. Table 3 Annual GHG Emissions Summary (Buildout)a (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e]) Year MTCO2a Areab 1 Energyc (electricity and natural gas) 121 Mobile 262 Solid Wasted 11 Water/Wastewatere 3 Refrigerants >1 Construction 12 Total Emissions 411 a CO2e was calculated using CalEEMod and the results are provided in the Technical Appendix. b Area source emissions are from landscape equipment and other operational equipment only; hearths omitted. c Energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod default electricity and natural gas usage rates.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 180 of 337 22 d Solid waste emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates. e Water/Wastewater emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default water consumption rates. Source: DKA Planning, 2025. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the attached Greenhouse Gases Technical Report, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 181 of 337 23 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a residential development that would not include creation or storage of hazardous materials. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a residential development that would not include creation or storage of hazardous materials. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a residential development that would not include creation or storage of hazardous materials. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the emission of hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a residential development that is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) No Impact. The Proposed Project is located 5.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and 4.4 miles east of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located 5.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and not nearby an private airstrip. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed 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. Specific policies in the GPU, such as Policies SE-2.2 and SE-2.3, would ensure that
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 182 of 337 24 the City’s emergency response plan and City Ordinances are updated regularly to reflect current evacuation and emergency procedures. In addition, Policy SE-2.1 would ensure that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is maintained and updated to reflect up to date emergency response and disaster preparedness information, and applicable evacuation procedures. Therefore, growth accommodated by the Proposed Project would not conflict with an emergency response plan, and impacts would be less than significant. h) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site located in an infill, suburban location in Indio in a desert climate where there are no nearby wildlands where fuel from wildfires would create significant risk and exposure to residents. As such, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 183 of 337 25 e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations concerning the protection of water quality, including the federal Clean Water Act, and the Municipal Code. The NPDES General Construction permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP, which must in-clude erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures re-quired by the NPDES General Permit, as well as BMPs that control hydrocarbons, trash and debris, and other potential construction-related pollutants. Chapter 55 of the Municipal Code also provides regulations for stormwater management and dis-charge control, including proof of compliance with the NPDES permits prior to the is-suance of grading, development, or occupancy permits. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another appropriate regulations, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant and the Project would not violate any wa-ter quality standards. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable state and local reg-ulations that concern groundwater recharge, including the Municipal Code. Chapter 55 of the Municipal Code requires new development and redevelopment projects to use porous materials and create permeable areas to ensure soil infiltration, as well as include project design features that direct runoff to permeable area. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another appropriate regulations, potential im-pacts to water quality would be less than significant and the Project would not violate substantially inhibit ground water recharge or substantially deplete ground water sup-plies.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 184 of 337 26 c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regula-tions that concern stormwater runoff and the protection of drainage patterns, includ-ing the Municipal Code. Chapter 153 of the City’s Municipal Code controls the altera-tion of drainage features such as floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers. Additionally, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code provides regulations regarding stormwater runoff, including project design features that reduce and direct stormwater runoff. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another ap-propriate regulations, it would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and would not alter the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations that concern stormwater runoff and the protection of drainage patterns, including the Municipal Code. Chapter 153 of the City’s Municipal Code controls the alteration of drainage features such as floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers. Additionally, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code provides regulations regarding stormwater runoff, including project design features that reduce and direct stormwater runoff. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another appropriate regulations, it would not substantially alter the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations that concern stormwater runoff and the protection of drainage patterns, including the Municipal Code. Chapter 153 of the City’s Municipal Code controls the alteration of drainage features such as floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers. Additionally, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code provides regulations regarding stormwater runoff, including project design features that reduce and direct stormwater runoff. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another appropriate regulations, it would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations that concern stormwater runoff and the protection of drainage patterns, including the Municipal Code. Chapter 153 of the City’s Municipal Code controls the alteration of drainage features such as floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers. Additionally, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code provides regulations regarding stormwater runoff, including project design features that reduce and direct
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 185 of 337 27 stormwater runoff. As the Proposed Project would comply with these and another appropriate regulations, it would not substantially degrade water quality. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located in the 100-year flood hazard boundary, as illustrated in the 2019 General Plan update Figure 4.9-2. As a result, the Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. h) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located in the 100-year flood hazard boundary, as illustrated in the 2019 General Plan update Figure 4.9-2. As a result, the Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. i) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is not located near any major levees or dams. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the Municipal Code. Specific GPU policies such as Policy 6.1: Flood Hazard Enforcement, provide guidance that new development is restricted in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Chapter 153 of the Municipal Code requires permits for development in special flood hazard and establishes construction standards for all areas of special flood hazards. As such, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) No Impact. The Project is not located by any major bodies of water that could expose the area to tsunamis or seiches. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the Municipal Code. Specific GPU policies such as Policy 6.1: Flood Hazard Enforcement, provide guidance that new development is restricted in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Chapter 153 of the Municipal Code requires permits for development in special flood hazard and establishes construction standards for all areas of special flood hazards. As such, the Project would not expose residents to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established neighborhood or community?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 186 of 337 28 b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation or applicable goal or policy of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development would be located on a vacant infill site, surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. As a result, the Project would help unify the residential development pattern of the area by developing an open set of parcels that currently divide the neighborhoods. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed single-family residential development would be located on a vacant infill site and comply with residential zoning and the General Plan land use designation for the area. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential development would be located on a vacant infill site that is not located within any of the City’s Conservation Areas. Disturbance of any sensitive species would be subject to species-specific Conservation Objectives and Strategies, which would ensure that populations of sensitive species are adequately conserved through protection, monitoring, and adaptive management strategies.
MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 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) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the City’s General Plan reduces and minimizes potential impacts of siting new land uses and engaging in
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 187 of 337 29 new mineral resource extraction. The intent of Policy CE-5.4 is to ensure that raw mineral re-sources are conserved and recycled to the extent feasible, in order to help alleviate the loss of known resources. The Project Site is not located in a Mineral Resource Zone by the State Mining and Geology Board and is not identified as containing significant mineral resources and deposits. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re-source that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the City’s General Plan reduces and minimizes potential impacts of siting new land uses and engaging in new mineral resource extraction. The intent of Policy CE-5.4 is to ensure that raw mineral re-sources are conserved and recycled to the extent feasible, in order to help alleviate the loss of known resources. The Project Site is not located in a Mineral Resource Zone by the State Mining and Geology Board and is not identified as containing significant mineral resources and deposits. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally important min-eral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 exposure people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 188 of 337 30 f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the Noise Technical Report for this Project, construction noise would not exceed 75 dBA Leq at any analyzed residential sensitive receptors near the Project Site during the twelve-month construction period. Likewise, noise impacts during project operations would not elevate ambient noise levels by 5 dBA Leq or more. Off-site noise impacts from vehicles accessing the Project Site during construction and operations would also be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Vibration Technical Report for this Project, there would not be significant building damage potential during construction of the Project. Specifically, groundborne vibration would not exceed 0.124 inches per second at any nearby structures. These vibration levels are less than the 0.20 inches per second threshold established by the Federal Transit Administration for wood and stucco buildings near the Project Site. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the Noise Technical Report for this Project, construction noise would not exceed 75 dBA Leq at any analyzed residential sensitive receptors near the Project Site during the twelve-month construction period. Likewise, noise impacts during project operations would not elevate ambient noise levels by 5 dBA Leq or more. Off-site noise impacts from vehicles accessing the Project Site during construction and operations would also be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located 5.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and 4.4 miles east of the Bermuda Dunes Airport and is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located 5.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport and is not located near a private airstrip. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project:
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 189 of 337 31 a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would add 40 residences to a 5.61-acre Project Site and a population of 126 persons based on the 3.14 persons per household density per residence.4 The 40 residences would represent 0.3 percent of the 12,900 residences projected for the City between 2019 and 2035. Since the Project’s underlying land use designation and zoning standards were included in the City’s input to the 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, the residential growth on the Project Site was included in the region’s transportation plan and air quality attainment plan. As such, the Project would be consistent with the growth projections that underly the region’s transportation and environmental planning. The 900-foot gap closure of Sandpiper Avenue and Bobolink Street but would not represent infrastructure that would induce further population growth, as it would not be flanked by any undeveloped areas that would be served by the road connection. b) No Impact. The proposed residential development would be built on a vacant lot that does not house existing residents. As a result, the Project would not displace any housing or persons. c) No Impact. The proposed residential development would be built on a vacant lot that does not house existing residents. As a result, the Project would not displace any housing or persons or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 4 Southern California Association of Governments, 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, growth forecasts data for the City of Indio, 2019 data.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 190 of 337 32 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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 following public services? • Fire Protection • Police Protection • Schools • Parks • Other Public Services
a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies relative to the provision and development of public services and facilities over the plan horizon. The need for additional fire/emergency facilities in the future is addressed in the GPU Safety Element through the inclusion of goals and policies which would ensure adequate firefighting staff, infrastructure, and the provision of environmen-tally sustainable infrastructure and facilities. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which together with the Riverside County Fire Department, provides services in Indio, Riverside County Fire Department has identified two vegetative fires, eleven structure fires to date this year at the fire station 86 on Jackson Street, 0.9 miles west of the Project Site.5 National data indicates that fire departments respond to 3.9 fire-related incidents and 64.2 medical emergencies per 100 people annually. For 120 residents, this would result in approximately 4.7 fire-related calls and 77 medical emergency calls per year. As a result, the Proposed Project’s 40 residences would not result in a substantial adverse impact on fire pro-tection services, response times, or other performance objectives. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, no new police facilities were proposed in conjunction with the GPU. However, growth accommodated by the GPU may require new staff and the construction of new facilities. GPU policies requires City facilities be adequately designed for proposed developments. In addition, Policy SE-1.9 requires the assessment of current funding for police services which would support and identify needed improvements for police services. The Indio Police Department has identified 25 calls 5 City of Indio Police Department; Events Details Report, Calls for Service Near Sandpiper Avenue 010125-052125.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 191 of 337 33 for service near the Project Site to date this year (including 21 from residences on Cardinal Avenue) at the headquarters at 46800 Jackson Street, which is 3,500 feet northwest of the Project Site. This represents an average of 0.17 calls per day from the area.6 Based on Indio’s crime rate of 2,001 incidents per 100,000 people, which includes a violent crime rate of 336.2 per 100,000 people and a property crime rate of 1,664.8 per 100,000 people, the Project would generate 2.4 total crimes annually (0.4 violent crimes and 2 property crimes), assuming an average household size of three persons. As a result, the Proposed Project’s 40 residences would not result in a substantial adverse impact on police protection services, response times, or other performance objectives. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, no new school facilities were proposed in conjunction with the GPU. However, growth accommodated by the GPU may require new staff and the construction of new facilities. The associated poten-tial impacts would be identified during the facility planning process and include mitigation measures where necessary for each project. Future proposals for new school facilities in the Planning Area would be subject to case-by-case review by DSUSD or CVUSD, and compliance with federal, state, and local building codes and regulations would minimize potential environ-mental impacts. Based on State law, collection of state-mandated school impact fees would reduce school-related impacts to a less than significant level under CEQA. As a result, the Proposed Project’s 40 residences would not result in a substantial adverse impact on schools. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the City has had a deficit with respect to meeting the 3.0 acres per 1,000 population standard, compli-ance with goals, policies, and Implementation Actions set forth in the GPU and completion of the CV Link would improve park and recreation facilities to meet the demands associated with growth accommodated under the GPU. With these planned improvements, the Proposed resi-dential project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the park and recreational facilities. In addition, the Project must adhere to General Plan goals and policies and be re-quired to provide parkland or in-lieu fees, as required by the Municipal Code. 6 City of Indio Police Department; Events Details Report, Calls for Service Near Sandpiper Avenue 010125-052125.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 192 of 337 34 RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would add 40 single-family residences to a residential portion of the City and would not significantly impact the use of neighborhood and regional recreational facilities. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would add 40 single-family residences to a residential portion of the City, would not include recreational facilities, and would not require the construction of expansion of neighborhood and regional recreational facilities TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 193 of 337 35 c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. On April 20, 2022, the City of Indio adopted Resolution No. 10275 that established the County of Riverside Transportation Department’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled as the City’s traffic analysis policy. As noted in the attached Traffic Analysis, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on transportation, as the 40 single family residences would be screened from further analysis. Specifically, the Proposed Project would qualify as a “Small Project” as it would include fewer than 110 single-family dwelling. Such Small Projects have low trip generation per CEQA exemptions or based on the County GHG Emissions Screening tables, emit less than 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent annually. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As the Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County, the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes performance standards for Level of Service and deficiency plans when there are unacceptable levels of service. The Proposed residential project is not located on the County’s CMP roadway network and would generate an average of 377 average daily trips, including 28 average A.M. peak hour trips and 38 P.M. peak hour trips. This level of trip generation would not substantially alter level of service at Highway 111 1,500 feet to the east, the nearest roadway on the CMP network. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located 5.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. As such, the Project would not alter air traffic patterns or increase traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include the extension of Sandpiper Avenue to connect with Bobolink Street. This gap closure would comply with
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 194 of 337 36 City of Indio engineering requirements and would not substantially increase hazards due to its geometry. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include the extension of Sandpiper Avenue to connect with Bobolink Street. This gap closure would comply with City of Indio engineering requirements and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Rather, it would likely improve emergency access, as it would close a gap in the local street network by connecting Sandpiper Avenue and Bobolink Street. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would include the extension of Sandpiper Avenue to connect with Bobolink Street. This gap closure would comply with City of Indio engineering requirements and would not adversely affect bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the area. Rather, it would improve pedestrian facilities by including sidewalk, curb and gutter facilities that will improve safety for walkers. Similarly, the paved road connection will improve safety for bicyclists in the neighborhood. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 195 of 337 37 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is 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?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located on a vacant, 5.61-acre infill lot that is not a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. It is also not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. It is a vacant lot with a Land Cover type of “Urban and Rural Developed” by the General Plan that does not contain undisclosed tribal cultural resources. b) The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan 2040, adopted in 2019, as it would be located in the Suburban Neighborhoods General Plan land use designation, which specifies an allowable density of up to eight dwelling units per acre. The Proposed Project would add 40 residences to a 5.61-acre Project Site and a population of 126 persons based on the 3.14 persons per household density per residence.7 This would represent a density of 7.1 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan. Since the Project’s underlying land use des-ignation and zoning standards were included in the City’s input to the 2024 Regional Transpor-tation Plan, the residential growth on the Project Site was included in the region’s transportation plan and air quality attainment plan. During the development of the City’s General Plan update in 2004, the City notified California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City’s jurisdiction prior to adoption of the General Plan, pursuant to SB 18. This notification went to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission list. The City contacted the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Indian Village, and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. If a tribe requests consultation, the City was required to address the potential impacts of the General Plan on any sacred sites, Native American lands, or traditional cultural resources. The City was obligated to document and consider tribal input on policies, land use designations, or implementation programs to preserve or protect resources. On July 6, 2015, the Morongo Band 7 Southern California Association of Governments, 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, growth forecasts data for the City of Indio, 2019 data.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 196 of 337 38 requested consultation on a government–to-government basis for all projects within the City of Indio’s jurisdiction that have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. On October 11, 2018, the Jamul Indian Village of California confirmed that the General Plan update would not be within the boundaries of the recognized Jamul Indian Reservation and did not request consultation. On December 9, 2015, the Agua Caliente tribe requested that their Tribal Historic Preservation Officer be provided with updates or status reports of the General Plan as it progressed. Because the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts on tribal cultural resources is consistent with those analyzed with the adopted General Plan and Program EIR, the Project is not required to undertaken separate tribal consultation. However, under AB 52, which was enacted in 2014, additional tribal consultation requirements under CEQA were required for development projects. Unlike SB 18, which applies to General Plan and policy-level actions, AB 52 applies to discretionary projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. Under AB 52, the City must notify tribes that have requested consultation on CEQA projects within 14 days of determining a project application is complete. If requested, the agency must consult with the tribe to avoid or mitigate significant impacts. However, because prior consultation and mitigation in the General Plan Program EIR already adequately addressed tribal resources concerns, such additional consultation under AB 52 was not required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located on a vacant, 5.61-acre infill lot that is not a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. As such, development of the Project Site would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 197 of 337 39 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resource, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the GPU Land Use and Design and Infrastructure and Public Facilities Elements include overarching goals and policies supporting effective wastewater treatment facilities. These policies support development of adequate wastewater capacity to serve future demand associated with growth forecast under the GPU. Further, policies related to encouraging the use of greywater, are included as Policy IE-3.1 and Policy IE- 3.4. As a result, the Proposed Project would be required to pay development impact fees as outlined in Chapters 33 and 57 of the City Munic-ipal Code, which would contribute to the necessary costs required to upgrade and maintain operation of the Waste Reclamation Facility. As a result, the Proposed Project would not ex-ceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the GPU Land Use and Urban Design and Infrastructure and Public Facilities Elements include over-arching goals and policies supporting effective wastewater treatment facilities. These policies support development of adequate wastewater capacity to serve future demand associated with growth forecast under the GPU. Further, policies related to encouraging the use of grey-water, are included as Policy IE-3.1 and Policy IE- 3.4. As a result, the Proposed Project would be required to pay development impact fees as outlined in Chapters 33 and 57 of the City Municipal Code, which would contribute to the necessary costs required to upgrade and maintain operation of the Waste Reclamation Facility. As a result, the Proposed Project would not compel construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, develop-ment such as the Proposed Project are required to comply with Section 55.26 of the Munici-pal Code, which requires new development and redevelopment to control the rate and vol-ume of storm water runoff and installation of storm water infrastructure such as retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns or other structures, at the discretion of the City Director of Public Works or designee. Goals and policies of the GPU Land Use and Design and Infra-
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 198 of 337 40 structure and Public Facilities Elements would support provision of adequate storm water fa-cilities in the Planning Area. As such, the Proposed Project is required to comply with strin-gent regulatory requirements of the RWQCB, the City Municipal Code, and CEQA, thereby effectively controlling storm water runoff. Therefore, impacts associated with storm water fa-cilities resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR found that impacts to water supply from cumulative growth under the General Plan horizon would be less than significant. The Project would be required to comply with City of Indio Municipal Code Section 156.035, which identifies standards for design and improvements applicable to subdivisions and requires improvement plans to identify water system improvements adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. Municipal Code Section 54.062 addresses water conservation in landscaping and prohibits water waste from inefficient landscape irrigation. Required adher-ence to the above policies would identify and secure water supplies to meet planned growth under the GPU and the Proposed Project itself. Adherence to Policies CE-2.1 and CE-2.2 would ensure that the City: maintains a water conservation rate schedule (tiered rates, for in-stance) intended to reduce water use, continues to work with CVWD and IWA to implement water conservation projects, as well as participate in regional water planning efforts. Adher-ence to Policy LU-12.2 would ensure that utility service levels are accommodated for prior to approval. Policy CE-3.9 ensures that new municipal buildings are designed to be sustainable and efficient, implementing water conservation measures (Policy CE-2.3) and similar to Pol-icy CE-7.6, ensure that new development projects incorporate native and other drought-toler-ant plants into project design. Potential impacts to water systems and water supply would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR found that impacts to wastewater treatment facilities from cumulative growth under the General Plan horizon would be less than significant. The Project would be required to comply with City of Indio Mu-nicipal Code Section 156.035, which identifies standards for design and improvements appli-cable to subdivisions and requires improvement plans to identify water system improvements adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. Municipal Code Section 54.062 addresses water conservation in landscaping and prohibits water waste from inefficient landscape irrigation. Required adherence to the above policies would identify and secure water supplies to meet planned growth under the GPU and the Proposed Project itself. Adherence to Policies CE-2.1 and CE-2.2 would ensure that the City: maintains a water conservation rate schedule (tiered rates, for instance) intended to reduce water use, continues to work with CVWD and IWA to implement water conservation projects, as well as participate in regional water planning ef-forts. Adherence to Policy LU-12.2 would ensure that utility service levels are accommodated for prior to approval. Policy CE-3.9 ensures that new municipal buildings are designed to be sustainable and efficient, implementing water conservation measures (Policy CE-2.3) and similar to Policy CE-7.6, ensure that new development projects incorporate native and other drought-tolerant plants into project design. Potential impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 199 of 337 41 f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR found that impacts to solid waste disposal facilities from cumulative growth under the General Plan horizon would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City mandated diversion requirements, Municipal Code requirements, and GPU policies. Re-quired adherence would maximize waste stream diversions and help reduce solid waste dis-posal impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to the solid waste generated. Regional landfills would remain open up to and past the GPU horizon year of 2040 and have capacity to meet the future needs of the City of Indio. As such, the Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Update 2019 EIR, the Project Site is a largely vacant site and is not located in a sensitive resource area with active plant or animal habitats. Redevelopment of the site would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 200 of 337 42 sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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) Less Than Significant Impact. As illustrated in the technical reports for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Transportation, the proposed single-family residential project is assumed in the City of Indio’s growth forecasts that address cumulative impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases, and transportation. Specifically, the Proposed Project would add 40 residences to a 5.61-acre Project Site and a population of 126 persons based on the 3.14 persons per household density per residence.8 Since the Project’s underlying land use designation and zoning standards were included in the City’s input to the 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, the residential growth on the Project Site was included in the region’s transportation plan and air quality attainment plan. As such, the Project would be consistent with the growth projections that underly the region’s transportation and environmental planning. As such, the Proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As illustrated in the technical reports for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise, and Vibration, and Transportation, the proposed single-family residential project would not have impacts that would adversely impact human health. The Project’s construction and operations would not exceed air quality thresholds of significance that could impact human beings. Further, the Project would not result in emissions of toxic pollutants or other impacts that would affect human health in the area. 8 Southern California Association of Governments, 2024 Regional Transportation Plan, growth forecasts data for the City of Indio, 2019 data.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 201 of 337 43 TECHNICAL APPENDIX AIR QUALITY MODELING
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 202 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
1 / 40
Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 203 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
2 / 40
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 204 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
3 / 40
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 205 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
4 / 40
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 206 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
5 / 40
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 207 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
6 / 40
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 208 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
7 / 40
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Indio Sandpiper
Construction Start Date 10/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency City of Indio
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 33.7040051554892, -116.20330883304192
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Indio
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5695
EDFZ 19
Electric Utility Imperial Irrigation District
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
40.0 Dwelling Unit 5.61 125,802 36,637 — 129 —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 209 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
8 / 40
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.2 10.9 15.7 0.03 0.40 0.26 0.67 0.37 0.06 0.43 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.24 39.3 41.9 0.06 1.71 8.09 9.81 1.58 4.04 5.62 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.79 5.54 7.68 0.01 0.21 0.33 0.46 0.19 0.14 0.26 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.51 1.01 1.40 < 0.005 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.05
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
2026 13.2 10.9 15.7 0.03 0.40 0.26 0.67 0.37 0.06 0.43
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.24 39.3 41.9 0.06 1.71 8.09 9.81 1.58 4.04 5.62
2026 1.13 10.1 13.8 0.02 0.38 0.22 0.61 0.35 0.05 0.40
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 210 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
9 / 40
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.33 3.09 3.75 0.01 0.13 0.33 0.46 0.12 0.14 0.26
2026 2.79 5.54 7.68 0.01 0.21 0.13 0.33 0.19 0.03 0.22
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.06 0.56 0.68 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.05 2026 0.51 1.01 1.40 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.42 1.24 10.3 0.02 0.04 1.36 1.40 0.04 0.35 0.39 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.96 1.28 6.04 0.02 0.04 1.36 1.40 0.04 0.35 0.39 Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.10 1.23 7.48 0.02 0.04 1.32 1.37 0.04 0.34 0.38 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.75 0.22 1.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.07
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.29 0.85 7.87 0.02 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 Area 3.11 0.02 2.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 211 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
10 / 40
Energy 0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Water — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.42 1.24 10.3 0.02 0.04 1.36 1.40 0.04 0.35 0.39 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.03 0.92 5.89 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 Area 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Water — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.96 1.28 6.04 0.02 0.04 1.36 1.40 0.04 0.35 0.39 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.07 0.86 6.20 0.02 0.01 1.32 1.34 0.01 0.34 0.35 Area 3.01 0.01 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Energy 0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Water — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.10 1.23 7.48 0.02 0.04 1.32 1.37 0.04 0.34 0.38 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.20 0.16 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 Area 0.55 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Energy < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 Water — — — — — — — — — —
Waste — — — — — — — — — —
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 212 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
11 / 40
Total 0.75 0.22 1.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.07
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.43 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.05 0.05
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 213 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
12 / 40
Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 214 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
13 / 40
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.89 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 1.74 0.38 0.01 0.03 0.38 0.41 0.03 0.10 0.13 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 215 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
14 / 40
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 1.17 1.45 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.21 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 216 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
15 / 40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.57 5.26 6.93 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.96 1.26 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 217 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
16 / 40
Worker 0.07 0.07 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 Vendor 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 Vendor < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 218 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
17 / 40
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.47 0.63 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 219 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
18 / 40
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Onsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02
Architectural
Coatings
11.9 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.15 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Architectural
Coatings
2.16 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Architectural
Coatings
0.39 — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 220 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
19 / 40
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
1.29 0.85 7.87 0.02 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36
Total 1.29 0.85 7.87 0.02 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
1.03 0.92 5.89 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36
Total 1.03 0.92 5.89 0.01 0.01 1.36 1.37 0.01 0.35 0.36 Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
0.20 0.16 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 Total 0.20 0.16 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.06 0.06
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 221 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
20 / 40
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Total 0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 222 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
21 / 40
0.03—0.030.03—0.03< 0.0050.150.360.02Single Family
Housing
Total 0.02 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
< 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01
Total < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer
Products
2.69 — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
0.22 — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment
0.20 0.02 2.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total 3.11 0.02 2.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer
Products
2.69 — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
0.22 — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 223 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
22 / 40
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Consumer
Products
0.49 — — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings
0.04 — — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment
0.02 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total 0.55 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 224 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
23 / 40
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 225 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
24 / 40
——————————Single Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Single Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 226 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
25 / 40
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 227 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
26 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 228 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
27 / 40
——————————Daily, Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2025 10/7/2025 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 10/8/2025 11/4/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 11/5/2025 9/30/2026 5.00 236 — Paving Paving 10/1/2025 10/31/2025 5.00 23.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/1/2026 9/30/2026 5.00 66.0 —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 229 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
28 / 40
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 230 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
29 / 40
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 21.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 14.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.28 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 2.88 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 231 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
30 / 40
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 254,749 84,916 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 7.50 0.00 —
Grading — 3,400 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.44 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 223 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 262 0.03 < 0.005
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 232 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
31 / 40
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
378 382 342 136,176 1,904 1,924 1,725 686,707
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 40
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
254749.05 84,916 0.00 0.00 —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 233 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
32 / 40
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 373,570 266 0.0330 0.0040 1,422,573
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 1,626,951 840,297
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 36.6 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 234 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
33 / 40
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 235 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
34 / 40
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 22.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 236 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
35 / 40
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 0 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 237 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
36 / 40
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 88.7
AQ-PM 11.1
AQ-DPM 47.4
Drinking Water 11.6
Lead Risk Housing 40.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 3.10
Traffic 28.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 41.6
Groundwater 61.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 56.4
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 43.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 61.7
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 238 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
37 / 40
Cardio-vascular 69.5
Low Birth Weights 17.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 78.5
Housing 93.7
Linguistic 99.9
Poverty 85.6
Unemployment 98.3
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 20.3131015
Employed 45.27139741
Median HI 17.87501604
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 8.777107661
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 35.14692673
Transportation —
Auto Access 22.57153856
Active commuting 46.9652252
Social —
2-parent households 26.67778776
Voting 5.594764532
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 52.43166945
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 239 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
38 / 40
Park access 27.8583344
Retail density 53.43256769
Supermarket access 34.72346978
Tree canopy 5.774412935
Housing —
Homeownership 43.06428846
Housing habitability 48.29975619
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 27.84550237 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 59.02733222
Uncrowded housing 35.14692673
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 10.27845502
Arthritis 40.2
Asthma ER Admissions 26.7
High Blood Pressure 38.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 12.1
Coronary Heart Disease 25.9
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 20.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 13.8
Life Expectancy at Birth 59.5
Cognitively Disabled 68.5
Physically Disabled 65.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 18.7
Mental Health Not Good 8.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 4.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.9
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 240 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
39 / 40
Physical Health Not Good 8.0
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 72.5
Current Smoker 10.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 5.2
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 35.2
Elderly 80.7
English Speaking 3.8
Foreign-born 82.5
Outdoor Workers 5.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 44.9
Traffic Density 19.0
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 83.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 16.2
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 65.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 19.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 241 of 337 Indio Sandpiper Detailed Report, 3/18/2025
40 / 40
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) EasternCoachellaValley a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project plans
Construction: Construction Phases —
Operations: Hearths —
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ...Page 242 of 337 44 TECHNICAL APPENDIX GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 243 of 337 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34668 PROJECT Greenhouse Gases Technical Report Prepared by DKA Planning March 2025
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 244 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 1 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction This technical report examines the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project at 40 Sandpiper Avenue in the City of Indio related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change by disclosing GHG emissions generation and by addressing the Project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission reduction plans, policies, and regulations. Calculation worksheets and documentation are included in the Technical Appendix to this analysis. Environmental Setting Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global warming, a related concept, is the observed increase in average temperature of Earth’s surface and atmosphere. One cause of global warming is an increase of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. GHG emissions are those compounds in Earth’s atmosphere that play a critical role in determining Earth’s surface temperature. Earth’s natural warming process is known as the “greenhouse effect” because Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it are like a greenhouse with glass panes that allow solar radiation (sunlight) into Earth’s atmosphere but prevents radiative heat from escaping, thus warming Earth’s atmosphere. Some levels of GHG emissions keep the average surface temperature of Earth close to a hospitable 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, it is believed that excessive concentrations of anthropogenic GHG emissions in the atmosphere can result in increased global mean temperatures, with associated adverse climatic and ecological consequences.1 Scientists studying the rapid rise in global temperatures have determined that human activity has resulted in increased emissions of GHGs, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (from motor vehicle travel, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing), deforestation, agricultural activity, and the decomposition of solid waste. Scientists refer to the global warming context of the past century as the “enhanced greenhouse effect” to distinguish it from the natural greenhouse effect.2 Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times. As reported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), global carbon emissions from fossil fuels increased by over 16 times between 1900 and 2008 and by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008. In addition, in the Global Carbon Budget 2014 report, published in September 2014, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in 2013 were found to be 43 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and the present concentration is the highest 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. 2 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 245 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 2 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 during at least the last 800,000 years.3 Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Regarding emissions of non-CO2 GHG, these have also increased significantly since 1990. In particular, studies have concluded that it is very likely that the observed increase in methane (CH4) concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use.4 In August 2007, international climate talks held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) led to the official recognition by the participating nations that global emissions of GHG must be reduced. According to the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol,” avoiding the most catastrophic events forecast by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would entail emissions reductions by industrialized countries in the range of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Because of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, which gives industrialized countries credit for financing emission-reducing projects in developing countries, such an emissions goal in industrialized countries could ultimately spur efforts to cut emissions in developing countries as well.5 With regard to the adverse effects of global warming, as reported by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, and natural environment in southern California and beyond. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include, among others, a reduction in the quantity and quality of water supply, a rise in sea level, damage to marine and other ecosystems, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases. Over the past few decades, energy intensity of the national and state economy has been declining due to the shift to a more service-oriented economy. California ranked fifth lowest among the states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product. However, in terms of total CO2 emissions, California is second only to Texas in the nation and is the 12th largest source of climate change emissions in the world, exceeding most nations. The SCAG region, with close to half of the state’s population and economic activities, is also a major contributor to the global warming problem.” GHG Emissions Background. GHG emissions include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).6 Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. Other GHG emissions are less abundant but have higher global warming potential than CO2. Thus, emissions of other GHG emissions are frequently expressed in the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes, landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG emissions. A general description of the GHG emissions is provided in Table 1. 3 C. Le Quéré, et al., Global Carbon Budget 2014, (Earth System Science Data, 2015, doi:10.5194/essd–7–47–2015). 4 USEPA, Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gas, updated June 2015. 5 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Press Release—Vienna UN Conference Shows Consensus on Key Building Blocks for Effective International Response to Climate Change, August 31, 2007 6 As defined by California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 104.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 246 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 3 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Table 1 Description of Identified GHG Emissionsa Greenhouse Gas General Description Carbon Dioxide (CO2) An odorless, colorless GHG, which has both natural and anthropocentric sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic (human caused) sources of CO2 are burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Methane (CH4) A flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. When one molecule of CH4 is burned in the presence of oxygen, one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of water are released. A natural source of CH4 is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain CH4, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) A colorless GHG. High concentrations can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used in rocket engines, racecars, and as an aerosol spray propellant. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are non-toxic, non-flammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Because they destroy stratospheric ozone, the production of CFCs was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs as refrigerants. HFCs deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface destroy the compounds. PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane and hexafluoroethane. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) An inorganic, odorless, colorless, non-toxic, and non-flammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi-conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) An inorganic, non-toxic, odorless, non-flammable gas. NF3 is used in the manufacture of semi-conductors, as an oxidizer of high-energy fuels, for the preparation of tetrafluorohydrazine, as an etchant gas in the electronic industry, and as a fluorine source in high power chemical lasers. a GHG emissions identified in this table are ones identified in the Kyoto Protocol and other synthetic gases recently added to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Source: Association of Environmental Professionals, Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June 29, 2007; Environmental Protection Agency, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for Nitrogen Trifluoride; January 2009. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is one type of simplified index based upon radiative properties used to estimate the potential future impacts of emissions of different gases upon the climate system. The GWP is based on several factors, including the radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 247 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 4 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of CO2. The higher the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that period. As shown in Table 2, the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected gases ranges from 1 to 22,800.7 Table 2 Atmospheric Lifetimes and Global Warming Potential Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential (100-year time horizon) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50–200 1 Methane (CH4) 12 (+/-3) 25 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 HFC-23: Fluoroform (CHF3) 270 14,800 HFC-134a: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (CH2FCF3) 14 1,430 HFC-152a: 1,1-Difluoroethane (C2H4F2) 1.4 124 PFC-14: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 PFC-116: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) 740 17,200 Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, Direct Global Warming Potentials Projected Impacts of Global Warming in California. The scientific community’s understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has improved over the past decade, and its predictive capabilities are advancing. However, there remain significant scientific uncertainties in, for example, predictions of local effects of climate change, occurrence, frequency, and magnitude of extreme weather events, effects of aerosols, changes in clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. Due to the complexity of the Earth’s climate system and inability to accurately model it, the uncertainty surrounding climate change may never be eliminated. Nonetheless, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers states that, “it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forces together.”8 A report from the National Academy of Sciences concluded that 97 to 98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of the IPCC in that climate change is very likely caused by human (i.e., anthropogenic) activity.9 According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the potential impacts in California due to global climate change may include: loss in snow pack; sea level rise; more extreme heat days per year; more high ozone days; more large forest fires; more drought years; increased erosion of 7 Atmospheric lifetime is defined as the time required to turn over the global Atmospheric burden. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 (TAR), Chapter 4: Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases, 2001, p. 247. 8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, page 5, 2013, http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed November 2023. 9 Anderegg, William R. L., J.W. Prall, J. Harold, S.H., Schneider, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107:12107-12109.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 248 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 5 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Deltas and associated levee systems; and increased pest infestation. Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California because of global warming and climate change. Air Quality. Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect and, therefore, its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would exacerbate air quality. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state.10 However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thus ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. In 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) published the California Climate Adaptation Strategy as a response to the Governor’s Executive Order S-13-2008.11 The CNRA report lists specific recommendations for state and local agencies to best adapt to the anticipated risks posed by a changing climate. In accordance with the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, the California Energy Commission (CEC) was directed to develop a website on climate change scenarios and impacts that would be beneficial for local decision makers.12 The website, known as Cal-Adapt, became operational in 201113 and provides a projection of potential future climate scenarios. The data are comprised of the average values (i.e., temperature, sea-level rise, snowpack) from a variety of scenarios and models and are meant to illustrate how the climate may change based on a variety of different potential social and economic factors. Water Supply. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on future water supplies in California. Studies have found that, “[c]onsiderable uncertainty about precise impacts of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until we have more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change.”14 For example, some studies identify little change in total annual precipitation in projections for California while others show significantly more precipitation.15 Warmer, wetter winters would increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge; however, this additional runoff 10 California Environmental Protection Agency, Preparing California for Extreme Heat: Guidance and Recommendations, October 2013, https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CCHEP-General/CDPH-EPA-2013-Preparing-CA-for-Extreme-Heat_ADA.pdf. Accessed November 2023. 11 California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008, 2009. 12 California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008, 2009. 13 The Cal-Adapt website address is: http://cal-adapt.org. 14 Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature, July 2003, page 5, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/climate_change_and_california_water_resources.pdf. Accessed November 2023. 15 Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature, July 2003, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/climate_change_and_california_water_resources.pdf. Accessed November 2023.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 249 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 6 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 would occur at a time when some basins are either being recharged at their maximum capacity or are already full. Conversely, reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration because of higher temperatures could reduce the amount of water available for recharge.16 The California Department of Water Resources report on climate change and effects on the State Water Project (SWP), the Central Valley Project, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, concludes that “climate change will likely have a significant effect on California’s future water resources…[and] future water demand.” It also reports that “much uncertainty about future water demand [remains], especially [for] those aspects of future demand that will be directly affected by climate change and warming. While climate change is expected to continue through at least the end of this century, the magnitude and, in some cases, the nature of future changes is uncertain.”17 It also reports that the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood, but “[i]t is unlikely that this level of uncertainty will diminish significantly in the foreseeable future.” Still, changes in water supply are expected to occur, and many regional studies have shown that large changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result from only small changes in inflows.18 In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC states “Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.”19 Hydrology and Sea Level Rise. As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide, and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of seawater as the oceans warm, and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California’s water supply. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events. Agriculture. California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half the country’s fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater ozone pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases 16 California Natural Resources Agency, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, an Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2014. 17 California Department of Water Resources Climate Change Report, Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources, July 2006, page 2-54, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=6454. 18 California Department of Water Resources Climate Change Report, Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources, July 2006, page 2-75, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=6454. 19 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, 2013, page 20.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 250 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 7 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thus affect their quality.20 Ecosystems and Wildlife. Increases in global temperatures and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise by 2-11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by 2100, with significant regional variation.21 Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level could rise as much as 2 feet along most of the United States coastline. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species’ composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes such as carbon cycling and storage.22 Regulatory Framework: Federal In response to growing scientific and political concern with global climate change, federal and state entities have adopted a series of laws to reduce emissions of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007), that CO2 and other GHG emissions are pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which the USEPA must regulate if it determines they pose an endangerment to public health or welfare. The U.S. Supreme Court did not mandate that the USEPA enact regulations to reduce GHG emissions. Instead, the Court found that the USEPA could avoid acting if it found that GHG emissions do not contribute to climate change or if it offered a “reasonable explanation” for not determining that GHG emissions contribute to climate change. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA issued a proposed finding that GHG emissions contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. On April 24, 2009, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. The USEPA stated that high atmospheric levels of GHG emissions “are the unambiguous result of human emissions and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes.” The USEPA further found that “atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.” The findings were signed by the USEPA Administrator on December 7, 2009. The final findings were published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009. The final rule was effective on January 14, 2010.23 While these findings alone do not impose any requirements on industry or other entities, this 20 California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, 2012, https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/CEC-500-2012-007.pdf. 21 National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change. Accessed November 2023. 22 Parmesan, C., and H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S., Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, November 2004, https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2004/11/observed-impacts-climate-change-united-states.pdf. November 2023. 23 USEPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Final Rule.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 251 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 8 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 action is a prerequisite to regulatory actions by the USEPA, including, but not limited to, GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. On April 4, 2012, the USEPA published a proposed rule to establish, for the first time, a new source performance standard for GHG emissions. Under the proposed rule, new fossil fuel–fired electric generating units larger than 25 megawatts (MW) are required to limit emissions to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per MW-hour (CO2/MWh) on an average annual basis, subject to certain exceptions. Subsequently, on April 23, 2018, the USEPA issued a policy stating that CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources would be considered carbon neutral when used for energy production at stationary sources. On April 17, 2012, the USEPA issued emission rules for oil production and natural gas production and processing operations, which are required by the CAA under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 60 and 63. The final rules include the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with requirements for several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas industry that currently are not regulated at the federal level.24 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. In response to the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling, the George W. Bush Administration issued Executive Order 13432 in 2007, directing the USEPA, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency for and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011; in 2010, the USEPA and the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016. In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the USEPA, USDOT, USDOE, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG emissions reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the USEPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards are projected to achieve 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the standards were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021. In March 2020, NHTSA and USEPA adopted new less stringent standards covering model years 2021 through 2026. In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011 the USEPA and the NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the USEPA, this regulatory program would reduce GHG 24 USEPA, 2012 Final Rules for Oil and Natural Gas Industry, April 17, 2012, https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/2012-final-rules-oil-and-natural-gas-industry. Accessed November 2023.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 252 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 9 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.25 Building on the success of the first phase of standards, in August 2016, the USEPA and the NHTSA finalized Phase 2 standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles through model year 2027 that will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution. The Phase 2 standards were to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and save vehicle owners fuel costs of about $170 billion.26 On August 10, 2021, NHTA proposed new CAFE standards for 2024-2026 that would increase the stringency of standards by 8 percent per year rather than the previous 1.5 percent. On September 19, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and USEPA issued a final action entitled the “One National Program Rules” to enable the federal government to provide nationwide uniform fuel economy and GHG emission standards for automobile and light duty trucks. This action finalizes the Safe Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule and clarifies that federal law preempts state and local tailpipe GHG emissions standards as well as zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates. On March 31, 2020, Part II of the SAFE Vehicles was issued and sets carbon dioxide emissions and CAFE standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026.27 On December 21, 2021, NHTA repealed the SAFE I Rule. Energy Independence and Security Act. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) facilitates the reduction of national GHG emissions by requiring the following: • Increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022; • Prescribing or revising standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances; • Requiring approximately 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs by phasing out incandescent light bulbs between 2012 and 2014; requiring approximately 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020; and • While superseded by the USEPA and the NHTSA actions described above, (i) establishing miles per gallon targets for cars and light trucks, and (ii) directing the NHTSA to establish a 25 The emission reductions attributable to the regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks were not included in the Project’s emissions inventory due to the difficulty in quantifying the reductions. Excluding these reductions results in a more conservative (i.e., higher) estimate of emissions for the Project. 26 USEPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce GHG and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond, August 2016. 27 U.S. Department of Transportation. 2020. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/final_safe_preamble_web_version_200330.pdf.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 253 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 10 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for trucks. Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promote research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”28 2024 Fleet Rules. On March 20, 2024, the USEPA issued final rules mandating significant reductions in future light- and medium-duty vehicles from model years 2027 to 2032. These rules call for vehicle manufacturers to achieve an industry-wide average target of 85 grams of CO2 per mile, a fifty-percent reduction compared to standards for model year 2026 vehicles. Similar regulations would reduce CO2 emission 44 percent when compared to standards for model year 2026 vehicles. On March 29, 2024, the USEPA approved its “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3” regulations that sets more stringent standard for heavy-duty vehicles beginning in model year 2027. This regulation will accelerate the shift of heavy-duty vehicles to cleaner fuels and electric drivetrains. Regulatory Framework: State Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (Scoping Plan). The Scoping Plan is a GHG emission reduction roadmap developed and updated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at least once every five years, as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 32. It lays out the transformations needed across various sectors to reduce GHG emissions and reach the State’s climate targets. CARB published the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan Update) in November 2022, as the third update to the initial plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 target of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual activities.29 The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update (adopted in 2014) assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 target and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs).30 The 2017 Scoping Plan Update,31 shifted focus to the newer Senate Bill (SB) 32 goal of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 by laying out a detailed cost-effective and technologically feasible path to this target, and also assessed progress towards achieving the AB 32 goal of returning to 1990 GHG levels by 2020. The 2020 goal was ultimately reached in 2016, four years ahead of the schedule called for under AB 32. 28 A green job, as defined by the United States Department of Labor, is a job in business that produces goods or provides services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. 29 CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2008-scoping-plan-documents. 30 CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf 31 CARB, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 254 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 11 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 The 2022 Scoping Plan Update is the most comprehensive and far-reaching Scoping Plan developed to date. It identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve new targets for carbon neutrality by 2045 and to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels, while also assessing the progress California is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan.32 The 2030 target is an interim but important stepping stone along the critical path to the broader goal of deep decarbonization by 2045. The relatively longer path assessed in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts to reduce GHGs and air pollution, while identifying new clean technologies and energy. Given the focus on carbon neutrality, the 2022 Scoping Plan Update also includes discussion for the first time of the natural and working lands sectors as sources for both sequestration and carbon storage, and as sources of emissions as a result of wildfires. Table 3 summarizes the potential scenarios to reduce emissions through 2045. Table 3 Estimated Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in the 2022 Scoping Plan Emissions Scenario GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) 2019 2019 State GHG Emissions 404 2030 2030 BAU Forecast 312 2030 GHG Emissions without Carbon Removal and Capture 233 2030 GHG Emissions with Carbon Removal and Capture 226 2030 Emissions Target Set by AB 32 (i.e., 1990 level by 2030) 260 Reduction below Business-As-Usual necessary to achieve 1990 levels by 2030 52 (16.7%)a 2045 2045 BAU Forecast 266 2045 GHG Emissions without Carbon Removal and Capture 72 2045 GHG Emissions with Carbon Removal and Capture (3) MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents; parenthetical numbers represent negative values. a 312 – 260 = 52. 52 / 312 = 16.7% Source: CARB, Final 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2022.
The 2022 Scoping Plan Update reflects existing and recent direction in the Governor’s Executive Orders and State Statutes, which identify policies, strategies, and regulations in support of and implementation of the Scoping Plan. Among these include Executive Order B-55-18 and AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act), which identify the 2045 carbon neutrality and GHG reduction targets required for the Scoping Plan. Table 4 provides a summary of major climate legislation and executive orders issued since the adoption of the 2017 Scoping Plan. Table 4 Major Climate Legislation and Executive Orders Enacted Since the 2017 Scoping Plan 32 CARB, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017, ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 255 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 12 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary Assembly Bill 1279 (AB 1279) (Muratsuchi, Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022) The California Climate Crisis Act AB 1279 establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. The bill requires CARB to ensure that the Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies. This bill is reflected directly in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update but is addressed in the State’s Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) that aims to reduce anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The PCAP was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 1, 2024. Senate Bill 905 (SB 905) (Caballero, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022) Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate CCUS and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects and technology. The bill requires CARB, on or before January 1, 2025, to adopt regulations creating a unified state permitting application for approval of CCUS and CDR projects. The bill also requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to publish a framework for governing agreements for two or more tracts of land overlying the same geologic storage reservoir for the purposes of a carbon sequestration project. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update modeling reflects both CCUS and CDR contributions to achieve carbon neutrality. Senate Bill 846 (SB 846) (Dodd, Chapter 239, Statutes of 2022) Diablo Canyon Powerplant: Extension of Operations SB 846 extends the Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s sunset date by up to five additional years for each of its two units and seeks to make the nuclear power plant eligible for federal loans. The bill requires that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) not include and disallow a load-serving entity from including in their adopted resource plan, the energy, capacity, or any attribute from the Diablo Canyon power plant. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update explains the emissions impact of this legislation. Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020) (Laird, Chapter 361, Statutes of 2022) Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 SB 1020 adds interim renewable energy and zero carbon energy retail sales of electricity targets to California end-use customers set at 90 percent in 2035 and 95 percent in 2040. It accelerates the timeline required to have 100 percent renewable energy and zero carbon energy procured to serve state agencies from the original target year of 2045 to 2035. This bill requires each state agency to individually achieve the 100 percent goal by 2035 with specified requirements. This bill requires the CPUC, California Energy Commission (CEC), and CARB, on or before December 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, to issue a joint reliability progress report that reviews system and local reliability. The bill also modifies the requirement for CARB to hold a portion of its Scoping Plan workshops in regions of the state with the most significant exposure to air pollutants by further specifying that this includes communities with minority populations or low-income communities in areas designated as being in extreme federal non-attainment. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update describes the implications of this legislation on emissions. Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137) (Gonzales, Chapter 365, Statutes of 2022) SB 1137 prohibits the development of new oil and gas wells or infrastructure in health protection zones, as defined, except for purposes of public health and safety or other limited exceptions. The bill requires operators of existing oil and gas wells or infrastructure within health protection zones to undertake specified monitoring, public notice, and nuisance requirements. The bill requires CARB to consult and concur with
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 256 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 13 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary Oil & Gas Operations: Location Restrictions: Notice of Intention: Health protection zone: Sensitive receptors the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on leak detection and repair plans for these facilities, adopt regulations as necessary to implement emission detection system standards, and collaborate with CalGEM on public access to emissions detection data.
Senate Bill 1075 (SB 1075) (Skinner, Chapter 363, Statutes of 2022) Hydrogen: Green Hydrogen: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases SB 1075 requires CARB, by June 1, 2024, to prepare an evaluation that includes: policy recommendations regarding the use of hydrogen, and specifically the use of green hydrogen, in California; a description of strategies supporting hydrogen infrastructure, including identifying policies that promote the reduction of GHGs and short-lived climate pollutants; a description of other forms of hydrogen to achieve emission reductions; an analysis of curtailed electricity; an estimate of GHG and emission reductions that could be achieved through deployment of green hydrogen through a variety of scenarios; an analysis of the potential for opportunities to integrate hydrogen production and applications with drinking water supply treatment needs; policy recommendations for regulatory and permitting processes associated with transmitting and distributing hydrogen from production sites to end uses; an analysis of the life-cycle GHG emissions from various forms of hydrogen production; and an analysis of air pollution and other environmental impacts from hydrogen distribution and end uses. This bill would inform the production of hydrogen at the scale called for in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Assembly Bill 1757 (AB 1757) (Garcia, Chapter 341, Statutes of 2022) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Climate Goal: Natural and Working Lands AB 1757 requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), in collaboration with CARB, other state agencies, and an expert advisory committee, to determine a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration, and for nature-based climate solutions, that reduce GHG emissions in 2030, 2038, and 2045 by January 1, 2024. These targets must support state goals to achieve carbon neutrality and foster climate adaptation and resilience. This bill also requires CARB to develop standard methods for state agencies to consistently track GHG emissions and reductions, carbon sequestration, and additional benefits from natural and working lands over time. These methods will account for GHG emissions reductions of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide related to natural and working lands and the potential impacts of climate change on the ability to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon from natural and working lands, where feasible. This 2022 Scoping Plan Update describes the next steps and implications of this legislation for the natural and working lands sector. Senate Bill 1206 (SB 1206) (Skinner, Chapter 884, Statutes of 2022) Hydrofluorocarbon gases: sale or distribution SB 1206 mandates a stepped sales prohibition on newly produced high- global warming potential (GWP) HFCs to transition California’s economy toward recycled and reclaimed HFCs for servicing existing HFC-based equipment. Additionally, SB 1206 also requires CARB to develop regulations to increase the adoption of very low-, i.e., GWP < 10, and no-GWP technologies in sectors that currently rely on higher-GWP HFCs. Senate Bill 27 (SB 27) (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) Carbon Sequestration: State Goals: Natural and SB 27 requires CNRA, in coordination with other state agencies, to establish the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy by July 1, 2023. This bill also requires CARB to establish specified CO2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond as part of its Scoping Plan. Under SB 27, CNRA is to establish and maintain a registry to identify projects in the state that drive climate action on natural and working lands and are seeking funding.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 257 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 14 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary Working Lands: Registry of Projects CNRA also must track carbon removal and GHG emission reduction benefits derived from projects funded through the registry. This bill is reflected directly in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update as CO2 removal targets for 2030 and 2045 in support of carbon neutrality. Senate Bill 596 (SB 596) (Becker, Chapter 246, Statutes of 2021) Greenhouse Gases: Cement Sector: Net- zero Emissions Strategy SB 596 requires CARB, by July 1, 2023, to develop a comprehensive strategy for the state’s cement sector to achieve net-zero-emissions of GHGs associated with cement used within the state as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 2045. The bill establishes an interim target of 40 percent below the 2019 average GHG intensity of cement by December 31, 2035. Under SB 596, CARB must: ● Define a metric for GHG intensity and establish a baseline from which to measure GHG intensity reductions. ● Evaluate the feasibility of the 2035 interim target (40 percent reduction in GHG intensity) by July 1, 2028. ● Coordinate and consult with other state agencies. ● Prioritize actions that leverage state and federal incentives. ● Evaluate measures to support market demand and financial incentives to encourage the production and use of cement with low GHG intensity. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update modeling is designed to achieve these outcomes. Executive Order N-82-20 Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-82-20 in October 2020 to combat the climate and biodiversity crises by setting a statewide goal to conserve at least 30 percent of California’s land and coastal waters by 2030. The Executive Order also instructed the CNRA, in consultation with other state agencies, to develop a Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy that serves as a framework to advance the state’s carbon neutrality goal and build climate resilience. In addition to setting a statewide conservation goal, the Executive Order directed CARB to update the target for natural and working lands in support of carbon neutrality as part of this Scoping Plan, and to take into consideration the NWL Climate Smart Strategy. CO2 Executive Order N-82-20 also calls on the CNRA, in consultation with other state agencies, to establish the California Biodiversity Collaborative (Collaborative). The Collaborative shall be made up of governmental partners, California Native American tribes, experts, business and community leaders, and other stakeholders from across the state. State agencies will consult the Collaborative on efforts to: ● Establish a baseline assessment of California’s biodiversity that builds upon existing data and can be updated over time. ● Analyze and project the impact of climate change and other stressors in California’s biodiversity. ● Inventory current biodiversity efforts across all sectors and highlight opportunities for additional action to preserve and enhance biodiversity. CNRA also is tasked with advancing efforts to conserve biodiversity through various actions, such as streamlining the state’s process to approve and facilitate projects related to environmental restoration and land management. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is directed to advance efforts to conserve biodiversity through measures such
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 258 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 15 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary as reinvigorating populations of pollinator insects, which restore biodiversity and improve agricultural production. The Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy informs the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Executive Order N-79-20 Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 in September 2020 to establish targets for the transportation sector to support the state in its goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The targets established in this Executive Order are: ● 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. ● 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks. ● 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible. The Executive Order also tasked CARB to develop and propose regulations that require increasing volumes of zero- electric passenger vehicles, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles toward their corresponding targets of 100 percent zero-emission by 2035 or 2045, as listed above. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update modeling reflects achieving these targets. Executive Order N-19-19 Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-19-19 in September 2019 to direct state government to redouble its efforts to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change while building a sustainable, inclusive economy. This Executive Order instructs the Department of Finance to create a Climate Investment Framework that: ● Includes a proactive strategy for the state’s pension funds that reflects the increased risks to the economy and physical environment due to climate change. ● Provides a timeline and criteria to shift investments to companies and industry sectors with greater growth potential based on their focus of reducing carbon emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. ● Aligns with the fiduciary responsibilities of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and the University of California Retirement Program. Executive Order N-19-19 directs the State Transportation Agency to leverage more than $5 billion in annual state transportation spending to help reverse the trend of increased fuel consumption and reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector. It also calls on the Department of General Services to leverage its management and ownership of the state’s 19 million square feet in managed buildings, 51,000 vehicles, and other physical assets and goods to minimize state government’s carbon footprint. Finally, it tasks CARB with accelerating progress toward California’s goal of five million ZEV sales by 2030 by: ● Developing new criteria for clean vehicle incentive programs to encourage manufacturers to produce clean, affordable cars. ● Proposing new strategies to increase demand in the primary and secondary markets for ZEVs.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 259 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 16 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary ● Considering strengthening existing regulations or adopting new ones to achieve the necessary GHG reductions from within the transportation sector. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update modeling reflects efforts to accelerate ZEV deployment. Senate Bill 576 (SB 576) (Umberg, Chapter 374, Statutes of 2019) Coastal Resources: Climate Ready Program and Coastal Climate Change Adaptation, Infrastructure and Readiness Program Sea level rise, combined with storm-driven waves, poses a direct risk to the state’s coastal resources, including public and private real property and infrastructure. Rising marine waters threaten sensitive coastal areas, habitats, the survival of threatened and endangered species, beaches, other recreation areas, and urban waterfronts. SB 576 mandates that the Ocean Protection Council develop and implement a coastal climate adaptation, infrastructure, and readiness program to improve the climate change resiliency of California’s coastal communities, infrastructure, and habitat. This bill also instructs the State Coastal Conservancy to administer the Climate Ready Program, which addresses the impacts and potential impacts of climate change on resources within the conservancy’s jurisdiction. Assembly Bill 65 (AB 65) (Petrie- Norris, Chapter 347, Statutes of 2019) Coastal Protection: Climate Adaption: Project Prioritization: Natural Infrastructure: Local General Plans This bill requires the State Coastal Conservancy, when it allocates any funding appropriated pursuant to the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, to prioritize projects that use natural infrastructure in coastal communities to help adapt to climate change. The bill requires the conservancy to provide information to the Office of Planning and Research on any projects funded pursuant to the above provision to be considered for inclusion into the clearinghouse for climate adaptation information. The bill authorizes the conservancy to provide technical assistance to coastal communities to better assist them with their projects that use natural infrastructure. Executive Order B-55-18 Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18 in September 2018 to establish a statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. Policies and programs undertaken to achieve this goal shall: ● Seek to improve air quality and support the health and economic resiliency of urban and rural communities, particularly low-income and disadvantaged communities. ● Be implemented in a manner that supports climate adaptation and biodiversity, including protection of the state’s water supply, water quality, and native plants and animals. This Executive Order also calls for CARB to: ● Develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal. ● Ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update is designed to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and the modeling includes technology and fuel transitions to achieve that outcome. Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) (De León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program:
Under SB 100, the CPUC, CEC, and CARB shall use programs under existing laws to achieve 100 percent clean electricity. The statute requires these agencies to issue a joint policy report on SB 100 every four years. The first of these reports was issued in 2021. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update reflects the SB 100 Core Scenario resource mix with a few minor updates.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 260 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 17 City of Indio Noise Technical Report March 2025 Bill/Executive Order Summary emissions of greenhouse gases Assembly Bill 2127 (AB 2127) (Ting, Chapter 365, Statutes of 2018) Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Assessment This bill requires the CEC, working with CARB and the CPUC, to prepare and biennially update a statewide assessment of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required for the state to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and of reducing emissions of GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The bill requires the CEC to regularly seek data and input from stakeholders relating to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This bill supports the deployment of ZEVs as modeled in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) (Lara, Chapter 614, Statutes of 2018) Insurance: Climate Change This bill requires the Insurance Commissioner to convene a working group to identify, assess, and recommend risk transfer market mechanisms that, among other things, promote investment in natural infrastructure to reduce the risks of climate change related to catastrophic events, create incentives for investment in natural infrastructure to reduce risks to communities, and provide mitigation incentives for private investment in natural lands to lessen exposure and reduce climate risks to public safety, property, utilities, and infrastructure. The bill requires the policies recommended to address specified questions. Assembly Bill 2061 (AB 2061) (Frazier, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2018) Near-zero-emission and Zero-emission Vehicles Existing state and federal law sets specified limits on the total gross weight imposed on the highway by a vehicle with any group of two or more consecutive axles. Under existing federal law, the maximum gross vehicle weight of that vehicle may not exceed 82,000 pounds. AB 2061 authorizes a near-zero- emission vehicle or a zero-emission vehicle to exceed the weight limits on the power unit by up to 2,000 pounds. This bill supports the deployment of cleaner trucks as modeled in this 2022 Scoping Plan Update. The 2022 Scoping Plan Scenario identifies the need to accelerate AB32’s 2030 target, from 40 percent to 48 percent below 1990 levels. Cap-and-Trade regulation continues to play a large factor in the reduction of near-term emissions for meeting the 2030 reduction target. Every sector of the economy will need to begin to transition in this decade to meet these GHG reduction goals and achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update approaches decarbonization from two perspectives, managing a phasedown of existing energy sources and technologies, as well as increasing, developing, and deploying alternative clean energy sources and technology.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 261 of 337 Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 18 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 The Scoping Plan Scenario includes references to relevant statutes and Executive Orders, although it is not comprehensive of all existing new authorities for directing or supporting the actions described. Table 2-1 identifies actions related to a variety of sectors such as: smart growth and reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); light-duty vehicles (LDV) and zero-emission vehicles (ZEV); truck ZEVs; reduce fossil energy, emissions, and GHGs for aviation ocean-going vessels, port operations, freight and passenger rail, oil and gas extraction; and petroleum refining; improvements in electricity generation; electrical appliances in new and existing residential and commercial buildings; electrification and emission reductions across industries such as the for food products, construction equipment, chemicals and allied products, pulp and paper, stone/clay/glass/cement, other industrial manufacturing, and agriculture; retiring of combined heat and power facilities; low carbon fuels for transportation, business, and industry; improvements in non-combustion methane emissions, and introduction of low GWP refrigerants. Achieving the targets described in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update will require continued commitment to and successful implementation of existing policies and programs, and identification of new policy tools and technical solutions to go further, faster. California’s Legislature and state agencies will continue to collaborate to achieve the state’s climate, clean air, equity, and broader economic and environmental protection goals. It will be necessary to maintain and strengthen this collaborative effort, and to draw upon the assistance of the federal government, regional and local governments, tribes, communities, academic institutions, and the private sector to achieve the state’s near-term and longer-term emission reduction goals and a more equitable future for all Californians. The Scoping Plan acknowledges that the path forward is not dependent on one agency, one state, or even one country. However, the State can lead by engaging Californians and demonstrating how actions at the state, regional, and local levels of governments, as well as action at community and individual levels, can contribute to addressing the challenge. Aligning local jurisdiction action with state-level priorities to tackle climate change and the outcomes called for in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update is identified as critical to achieving the statutory targets for 2030 and 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update discusses the role of local governments in meeting the State’s GHG reductions goals. Local governments have the primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how and where land is developed to accommodate population growth, economic growth, and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. They also make critical decisions on how and when to deploy transportation infrastructure, and can choose to support transit, walking, bicycling, and neighborhoods that do not force people into cars. Local governments also have the option to adopt building ordinances that exceed statewide building code requirements, and play a critical role in facilitating the rollout of ZEV infrastructure. As a result, local government decisions play a critical role in supporting state-level measures to contain the growth of GHG emissions associated with the transportation system and the built environment—the two largest GHG emissions sectors over which local governments have authority. The City has taken the initiative in combating climate change by developing programs and regulations such as the Green New Deal and Green Building Code. Each of these is discussed further below. California’s Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP). The PCAP was released on March 1, 2024 and is based on the goals set by AB 1279, which aims to reduce anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The PCAP also relies on the 2022 Scoping Plan to achieve these goals and focus on Statewide and/or regional measures focused on seven topics:
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 262 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 19 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 • Transportation o Create a Holistic, Heavy-Duty Zero-Emissions Vehicle Buydown Program o Install Truck Charging to Support Zero-Emissions Goods Movement at California Ports and Warehouse Districts o Advance the Deployment of Clean Off-Road Equipment o Bolster Investments in the State’s Sustainable Port and Freight Infrastructure o Support Mobility Projects Uplifted by Communities o Allow for Local Deployment of ZEV Infrastructure and Low-Income ZEV Support • Industrial o Accelerate Industrial Decarbonization • Energy o Expand Decarbonization through the Energy Conservation Assistance Act o Create a Funding Program to Upgrade the Capacity of Distribution Systems o Expand the Success of California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program for Behind-the-Meter Energy Storage o Bolster Healthy Landscapes and Resilient Communities through Expanding the Biomass to Carbon Negative Biofuels Program o Deploy Equitable Building Decarbonization o Implement Bioenergy Projects o Enable Renewable Microgrids for Rural Communities and Tribes • High Global Warming Potential o Expand F-gas Reduction Incentive Program • Agriculture o Expand California’s Healthy Soils Practices o Reduce Methane Emissions through Dairy Digesters • Natural and Working Lands o Bolster California’s Forest Health Program o Expand Urban and Community Forest Projects o Expand the State’s Wetland Restoration Program • Waste o Food Waste Prevention and Edible Food Recovery Program o Bolster Organics Recycling Infrastructure These control strategies are intended to be implemented through Statewide or regional programs that would supplement the blueprint in the State’s Scoping Plan. These strategies are generally not applicable to development projects in urban or suburban areas.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 263 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 20 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 Advanced Clean Cars Regulations. In 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2015–2025.33 The components of the Advance Clean Car program include the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the ZEV regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in the 2018 through 2025 model years.34 On September 23, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order No. N-79-20 that phases out sales of new gas-powered passenger cars by 2035 in California with an additional ten-year transition period for heavy vehicles. The state would not restrict used car sales, nor forbid residents from owning gas-powered vehicles. In accordance with the Executive Order, CARB is developing a 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, a comprehensive analysis that presents scenarios for possible strategies to reduce the carbon, toxic and unhealthy pollution from cars, trucks, equipment, and ships. The strategies will provide important information for numerous regulations and incentive programs going forward by conveying what is necessary to address the aggressive emission reduction requirements. In November 2022, the ACC II regulations took effect, setting annual ZEV and plug-in hybrid vehicle sales requirements for model years 2026 to 2035 (ZEV program) and increasingly more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission standards (LEV program) to ensure automakers phase out new sales of internal combustion engine vehicles. California Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, Sections 1601 through 1608). The 2014 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, adopted by the CEC, include standards for new appliances (e.g., refrigerators) and lighting, if they are sold or offered for sale in California. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost- effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances. California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, located at Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations and commonly referred to as “Title 24,” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.35 The 2022 standards continue to improve upon previous standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings and became effective January 1, 2023. Compliance with Title 24 is enforced through the building permit process. Key changes included encouraging heat pump technology for space and water heating, setting electric-ready requirements for 33 California Air Resources Board, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program 34 Ibid. 35 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency, Accessed November 2023.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 264 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 21 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 single-family homes, expanding solar photovoltaic system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. California Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code). The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) are mandatory green building standards for new structures. They focus on measures to reduce water consumption, GHG emissions, and materials and waste. These codes are updated every three years, with the 2022 CalGreen code updates effective January 1, 2023. New requirements address requirements for Level 2 electric vehicle chargers and use of solar photovoltaic shade structures instead of shade trees. Voluntary measures focus on higher EV charging requirements for parking facilities. Regulatory Framework: Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted a “Policy on Global Warming and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” on April 6, 1990. The policy commits the SCAQMD to consider global impacts in rulemaking and in drafting revisions to the Air Quality Management Plan. In March 1992, the SCAQMD Governing Board reaffirmed this policy and adopted amendments to the policy to include the following directives: • Phase out the use and corresponding emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane or TCA), carbon tetrachloride, and halons by December 1995; • Phase out the large quantity use and corresponding emissions of hydrochlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000; • Develop recycling regulations for hydrochlorofluorocarbons (e.g., SCAQMD Rules 1411 and 1415); • Develop an emissions inventory and control strategy for methyl bromide; and • Support the adoption of a California GHG emission reduction goal. Southern California Association of Governments. To implement SB 375 and reduce GHG emissions by correlating land use and transportation planning, SCAG adopted the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS on April 4, 2024, to serve as the roadmap to fulfilling the region’s compliance with GHG reduction targets. To this end, the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS recognizes that transportation investments and future land use patterns are inextricably linked and acknowledges how this relationship can help the region make choices that sustain existing resources while expanding efficiency, mobility, and accessibility for people across the region. The 2024-2050 RTP/SCS calls for $751.7 billion in investments, including $303.3 billion for transit projects and operations, $75.4 billion for state highway operations and maintenance, $62.6 billion for goods movement, and $38 billion for active transportation. These investments would aim to achieve several key objective:
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 265 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 22 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 • A 11.6 percent reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled among passenger vehicles (from 2019). • A 31.8 percent reduction in minutes of daily traffic delay per person (from 2019). • Achievement of the region’s targets for reducing greenhouse gases from autos and light-duty trucks by 19 percent per capita, from 2005 levels, by 2035. • 465,000 new jobs supported by transportation investments or improved competitiveness each year. • An overall return on investment of $2 for every $1 spent. The 2024-2050 RTP/SCS land use pattern continues the trend of focusing new housing and employment growth in the region’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and aims to enhance and build out the region’s transit network. According to the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, 66 percent of new households and 54 percent of new jobs between 2019–2050 will be located in PDAs, either near transit or in walkable communities. Regulatory Framework: Local City of Indio Building Code. On October 5, 2022, the Indio City Council approved Ordinance No. 1784, which adopted the 2022 California Building Standards, which includes the Green Building Standards Code. Housing Element (Housing Needs Assessment). The Housing Element of the General Plan is prepared pursuant to state law and provides planning guidance in meeting housing needs identified in the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs, establishes the goals, objectives, and policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy, and provides the array of programs the City intends to implement to create and preserve sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods across the City. The Housing Needs Assessment chapter discusses the City’s population and housing stock to identify housing needs for a variety of household types across the City. The Housing Element also promotes sustainability and resilience, and environmental justice through housing, as well as the need to reduce displacement. It encourages the utilization of alternatives to current parking standards that lower the cost of housing, support GHG and VMT goals and recognize the emergence of shared and alternative mobility. The Element also identifies housing strategies for energy conservation, water conservation, alternative energy sources and sustainable development which support conservation and reduce demand. The current SCAG RHNA 6th Cycle allocation plan calls for Indio to build 7,812 residences from 2021-2029, with 1,793 very-low income, 1,170 low-income, 1,315 moderate income, and 3,534 above-moderate income.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 266 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 23 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 Existing Conditions Existing Statewide GHG Emissions. GHG emissions are the result of both natural and human-influenced activities. Regarding human-influenced activities, motor vehicle travel, consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, industrial processes, heating and cooling, landfills, agriculture, and wildfires are the primary sources of GHG emissions. Without human intervention, Earth maintains an approximate balance between the emission of GHG emissions into the atmosphere and the storage of GHG emissions in oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. Events and activities, such as the industrial revolution and the increased combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, coal), have contributed to the rapid increase in atmospheric levels of GHG emissions over the last 150 years. As reported by the CEC, California contributes approximately one percent of global and 8.2 percent of national GHG emissions. California represents approximately 12 percent of the national population. Approximately 80 percent of GHGs in California are CO2 produced from fossil fuel combustion. The current California GHG inventory compiles statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and carbon sinks/storage from years 2000 through 2021.36 It includes estimates for CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. As shown in Table 5’s GHG inventory for California for years 2015 through 2021, the GHG inventory for California in 2021 was 381.3 million MTCO2e. Table 5 California GHG Inventory (metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e]) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Transportation 161.2 165.0 166.4 165.2 162.3 135.6 145.6 Electric Power 86.3 70.8 64.4 65.0 60.2 59.5 62.4 Industrial 82.7 81.2 81.4 82.0 80.8 73.3 73.9 Commercial & Residential 37.2 37.7 38.3 37.5 40.6 38.9 38.8 Agriculture 32.6 32.1 31.6 32.1 31.3 31.5 30.9 High GWP 18.8 19.4 20.1 20.5 20.7 21.3 21.3 Recycling & Waste 8.1 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.4 Total 426.9 414.2 410.4 410.7 404.4 368.7 381.3 Source: California Air Resources Board (2024). California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. Data available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data Existing Project Site Emissions. The Project Site is a vacant site with no improvements. Therefore, this analysis assumes no anthropogenic emissions of GHG from the Project Site. 36 A carbon inventory identifies and quantifies sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. Sinks are defined as a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 267 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 24 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 Methodology CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions, giving them discretion to determine whether to assess impacts quantitatively or qualitatively. It calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. This emissions inventory also demonstrates the reduction in a project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions that results from regulations and requirements adopted as implementation efforts for these plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. As such, it provides further justification that a project is consistent with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions by a project and over time. The significance of a project’s GHG emissions impacts is not based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from that project. The City, SCAQMD, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), and other applicable agencies have not adopted a numerical threshold of significance for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. As a result, the methodology for evaluating a project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions.37 This evaluation is the sole basis pursuant to CEQA for determining the significance of a project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment. Appendix D, Local Actions, of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update includes “recommendations intended to build momentum for local government actions that align with the State’s climate goals, with a focus on local GHG reduction strategies (commonly referred to as climate action planning) and approval of new land use development projects, including through environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” The State encourages local governments to adopt a CEQA-qualified CAP addressing the three priority areas (transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization). However, the State recognizes that almost 50 percent of jurisdictions do not have an adopted CAP, among other reasons because they are costly, requiring technical expertise, staffing, funding. Additionally, CAPs need to be monitored and updated as State targets change and new data is available. Jurisdictions that wish to take meaningful climate action (such as preparing a non-CEQA-qualified CAP or as individual measures) aligned with the State’s climate goals in the absence of a CEQA-qualified CAP are advised to look to the three priority areas when developing local climate plans, measures, policies, and actions: (transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization). “By prioritizing climate action in these three priority areas, local governments can address the largest sources of GHGs within their jurisdiction.” The State also recognizes in Appendix D, Local Actions, of the Scoping Plan that each community or local area has distinctive situations and local jurisdictions must balance the urgent need for housing38 37 CEQA Guidelines, Section 14 CCR 15064.4. 38 The State recognizes the need for 2.5 million housing units over the next eight years, with one million being affordable units. See page 20, Appendix D, 2022 Scoping Plan Update, November 2022
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 268 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 25 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 while demonstrating that a Project is in alignment with the State’s Climate Goals. The State calls for the climate crisis and the housing crisis to be confronted simultaneously. Jurisdictions should avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. Ultimately, targets that make it more difficult to achieve statewide goals by prohibiting or complicating projects that are needed to support the State’s climate goals, like infill development, low-income housing or solar arrays, are not consistent with the State’s goals. The State also recognizes the lead agencies’ discretion to develop evidence-based approaches for determining whether a project would have a potentially significant impact on GHG emissions. The analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions from the Project using recommended air quality models. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a). The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions because of compliance with regulations requirements adopted to implement plans for reducing or mitigating GHG emissions. However, the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is not based on the amount of emissions from the Project. Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies A consistency analysis has been provided that describes the Project’s conflict with applicable plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, included in the applicable portions of CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. In addition, this analysis assesses the Project’s consistency with other plans (e.g., the Green New Deal) for informational purposes. OPR encourages lead agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform project analyses. Statewide, the Climate Change Scoping Plan provides measures to achieve AB 32 and SB 32 targets. On a regional level, SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS contains measures to achieve VMT reduction required by SB 375. The City does not have a programmatic mitigation plan from which to tier from, though it has adopted plans to help reduce GHG emissions. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(3), consistency with such plans and policies “must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions.” To demonstrate such incremental reductions, this chapter estimates reductions of project-related GHG emissions resulting from consistency with plans. Consistent with evolving scientific knowledge, approaches to GHG quantification may continue to evolve in the future. A consistency analysis is provided below that describes the Project’s consistency with performance-based standards in the applicable parts of CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. Quantification of Emissions This analysis quantifies the Project’s GHG emissions for information purposes, considering the GHG reduction features that would be incorporated into the Project’s design. It relies on the California
Resolution No. 10520, City Council consideration of Planning Commission ... Page 269 of 337
Tentative Tract Map 34668 Project PAGE 26 City of Indio Greenhouse Gas Technical Report March 2025 Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California, who provided data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) to account for local requirements and conditions. The model is considered by SCAQMD to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects throughout California.39 This analysis quantifies the Project’s emissions and compares them to a Project without Reduction Features scenario, as defined by CARB’s most updated projections for AB 32 and SB 32. This comparison is included for informational purposes to disclose the relative carbon efficiency of the Project and to determine if there would be a reduction in the Project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions based on compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for reducing GHG emissions. The Project Without Reduction Features scenario does not consider site-specific conditions, Project design features, or prescribed mitigation measures. This approach is consistent with the concepts used in the CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan for the implementation of AB 32. This methodology is used to analyze consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans and policies and demonstrate the efficacy of the measures contained therein, but it is not a threshold of significance. The Project Without Reduction Features scenario is similar to the approach currently used by the City with respect to evaluating a proposed development project’s consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plans. Currently, the City evaluates the proposed project under two scenarios—one scenario without GHG reduction measures (akin to the Project Without Reduction Features scenario) and a second scenario with GHG reduction measures. The Project without Reduction Features scenario also does not account for energy efficiency measures that would go beyond Title 24 building standards or trip reductions from the co-location of uses and availability of public transit. However, the Project without Reduction Features does consider regulatory measures included in CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. Project GHG Emissions The California Climate Action Registry (Climate Registry) General Reporting Protocol provides basic procedures and guidelines for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from a number of general and industry-specific activities.40 The General Reporting Protocol is based on the “Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard” developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute through “a multi-stakeholder effort to develop a standardized approach to the voluntary reporting of GHG emissions.”41 Although no numerical thresholds of significance have been developed, and no specific protocols are available for land use 39 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model, CalEEModTM, www.caleemod.com, accessed November 2023. 40 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1, January 2009. 41 Ibid.