Indio City Council
June 17, 2026

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 647 of 825 Conditions of Approval will ensure that the project is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

h. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property. Required public utility easements and infrastructure corridors will be reflected on the Final Map and recorded accordingly. The subdivision will not eliminate or obstruct existing public access rights, and all necessary easements for water, sewer, drainage, electrical, telecommunications, and gas services wi ll be provided consistent with City and utility provider requirements.

SECTION 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission of the City of Indio RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE Tentative Tract Map No. 39405 (Case No. PLAN-TTM-25-0005) with the following conditions of approval:

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 cond ition 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. 39405 (Case File No. PLAN-TTM-25-0005) approval granted by this Resolution shall expire two years after its approval , or as otherwise prescribed by the Subdivision Map and City of Indio Unified Act 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 Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 648 of 825 legal 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 holds harmless obligation shall apply even if the claims, damages, losses, or expenses arise out of the negligence or fault of the Indemnified Parties. If Applicant fails to perform any of the obligations de scribed 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. All Conditions of Approval shall be provided on a full -size sheet as part of the construction plan set. All notes and specifications shown on the approved plans shall be considered Conditions of Approval. In the event of a conflict between the approved plans and the Conditions of Approval, the Conditions of Approval shall prevail.

5. Approval of this project authorizes a Tentative Tract Map and Planning Review Discretionary for the Roadrunner Flats Project. No building permits shall be issued until all applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied.

6. The Applicant shall ensure that development of the Project shall occur substantially as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 39405 (Case No. PLAN-TTM-25-0005) and the approved Planning Review Discretionary plans (Case No. PLAN-PRD-25-0023), Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 649 of 825 including the approved site layout, lot configuration, private streets, stormwater facilities, open space lots, and architectural elevations, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.

7. The Applicant shall cause these, and all related Conditions of Approval associated with Planning Review Discretionary Case No. PLAN-PRD-25-0023 and Tentative Tract Map No. 39405 (Case No. PLAN-TTM-25-0005) to be recorded against Assessor’s Parcel Number 691-060-005 with the Riverside County Recorder within thirty (30) calendar days of final approval by the City Council.

8. The Applicant shall, within thirty (30) calendar days after the City Council adopts the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 39405 (Case No. PLAN-TTM-25- 0005), submit to the Community Development Director written consent to all Conditions of Approval contained in the applicable Resolutions. Tentative Tract Map No. 39405 and Planning Review Discretionary Case No. PLAN-PRD-25-0023 shall be void and of no force or effect unless such written consent is submitted to the City within the required thirty (30) calendar day period.

9. All development within the Desert Estates Transition 3 zoning district shall comply with the applicable development standards set forth in Table 2.02.03 -1 and all other applicable provisions of the City of Indio Unified Development Code.

10. Density and Lot Standards:
a. Maximum allowable density shall not exceed 3 dwelling units per acre, calculated in accordance with City standards.
b. Minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet.
c. Minimum lot width shall be 80 feet.
d. Minimum lot depth shall be 100 feet.

11. Setbacks for Primary Structures
a. Minimum front setback shall be 20 feet.
b. Minimum street side setback for corner lots shall be 20 feet. c. Minimum interior side setback shall be 15 feet.
d. Minimum rear setback shall be 25 feet.

12. Setbacks shall be measured from property lines.

13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable front yard and garage setback requirements of the Desert Estates Transition 3 (DET-3) zoning district.

14. Where a front-facing garage projects toward the street, the Applicant shall incorporate a covered porch element that establishes the primary front façade of the residence for setback measurement purposes, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or their designee.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 650 of 825

15. All private streets, common areas, landscaping, and stormwater facilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by a Homeowners Association , Property Owner or Property Management Company Maintenance responsibilities shall be clearly . identified on the Tentative Tract Map and in project documents.

16. The Applicant shall comply with the landscaping requirements of Unified Development Code Section 3.02.09 and the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

17. Front Yard Landscaping Standards
a. A minimum of 40 percent of the required front yard setback area shall be landscaped.
b. At least 50 percent of the landscaped area shall consist of live plant materials c. materials inert permeable of landscaped may area The consist remaining approved by the City.

18. All required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed and fully operational prior to final planning inspection for each lot and shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Dead or dying plant materials shall be replaced within thir ty 30 days of City notification.

19. A typical front yard landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director or designee as part of the construction drawing package prior to issuance of building permits.

20. All trees shown on the approved landscape plans shall be installed at a minimum size of twenty-four 24-inch box.

21. All perimeter walls and fencing shall comply with the height, material, and design standards of the Unified Development Code and shall be shown on approved construction plans.

22. All new masonry walls, or non -transparent fences that face a public right -of-way or publicly-accessible path or open space, and that are 50 feet in length or longer and four feet in height or taller shall be designed to minimize visual monotony through at least one of the following:
a. Changes in plane. An offset a minimum of 1 foot deep for every 50 feet to 75 feet of wall;
b. Changes in height. Wall inserts and/or decorative columns or pilasters every 20 feet to provide relief;
c. Changes in material. Changes in material and/or material texture; d. Landscaping. Continuous and opaque landscape screening.

23. Retaining walls shall be required at all locations where there is a grade separation of more than 12 inches between properties. This may be waived by the Director upon approval of an alternative design by the City Engineer.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 651 of 825

24. The on-site stormwater detention basin shall be included in the formal landscape plan submittal and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department.

25. All signage shall comply with Unified Development Code Section 3.05.

26. The Applicant shall bear all costs associated with land acquisition, easements, rights- of-way, utility coordination, and infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the project, as required by the City.

27. The project shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act prior to final approval and implementation.

28. shall permit City staff to conduct periodic inspections to verify The Applicant compliance with all conditions of approval. The first inspection will occur within 6 months of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Commission reserves the right to initiate a review of the PLAN-PRD-25-0023 based on verified complaints or evidence of non-compliance.

29. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Planning Review Discretionary does not authorize Separate grading, building, and other permits shall be construction. required, and all construction shall comply with City of Indio standards in effect at the time of permit issuance.

30. Prior to final map approval, the property owner shall record an Affordable Housing Covenant or Regulatory Agreement against the subject property, in a form approved by the Community Development Department, to ensure that the approved affordable housing units remain affordable to households serving low and moderate -income households at 30% to 70% of area median income (AMI) specified in the project approval. The covenant shall run with the land and shall bind all future owners and successors in interest for a period of not less than 55 years. Proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to final map recordation.

31. Secondary access gate on Dreams Lane shall be for Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only and gated.

32. The Applicant shall annex the project into a City Community Facilities District for public facilities and/or public services prior to issuance of any building permit.

33. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Fire Flow - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all buildings is required per CFC Appendix B. Prior to building permit issuance for new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation to show there exists a wate r system capable of delivering the required fire flow. Specific design features may increase or decrease the required fire flow.

34. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Hydrants - The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of fire hydrants, shall comply with the Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 652 of 825 CFC Appendix C. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 600 feet from all portions of the exterior of the building along an approved route from a fire apparatus access road. Where new water mains are extended along streets and hydrants are not needed f or protection of structures, standard fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1000 feet along streets for transportation hazards. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are 4” x 2 ½”. Final fire hydrant locations shall be determined during the fire water plan review. Reference CFC as amended.

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

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

36. Fire Department Access - Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided within 300 feet of all exterior portions of buildings, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of no less than 24 feet. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet shall provide an approved turn around. The minimum required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road is 45 feet outside radius and 21 feet inside radius. (For developments within the SRA and within the LRA VHFHSZ, the minimum required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road is 74 feet outside radius and 50 feet inside radius. See California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 1273.04.) The construction of the fire apparatus access r oads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 80,000 lbs.

Unless otherwise approved, the grade of a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 16 percent, and the cross slope shall not exceed 2.5 percent. The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be a maximum of 6 percent grade change for 25 feet of approach/departure.

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

38. Fire Department Access Turn Around – On-parcel dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall provide a bulb turnaround at the terminus measuring a minimum of 45 feet outside radius and 21 feet inside radius. (For development within the SRA and within the LRA VHFHSZ, the bulb turnaround at the terminus shall be 40 feet outside radius and 16 feet inside radius). Parallel parking around the perimeter of the bulb is acceptable, provided the bulb outside turning radius is increased by 8 feet. In-lieu of a bulb, a hammer -head type turnaround is acceptable where the top of the “T” dimension is 120 feet with the stem in the center.

Additional turnaround designs may be acceptable as approved by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended a nd Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 653 of 825

39. Fire and Life Safety Requirements - Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Department reviews any subsequent submittals. These conditions will be based on California Fire Code (CFC), California Building Code (CBC), and related codes/standards adopted and amended at the time of construction plan submittal.

40. Secondary Access – Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department, dead end fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed (660 feet for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas. 800 feet for Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone) 1,320 feet. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall provide independent egress/access from/to the area or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall be as remote as prac tical from the primary fire apparatus access road to reduce the possibility that both routes will be obstructed by a single emergency.

Additional fire apparatus access roads based on the potential for impairment by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, anticipated magnitude of a potential incident, or other factors that could limit access may be required by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

41. Residential Fire Sprinklers: Residential fire sprinklers are required in all one and two- family dwellings per the California Residential Code (CRC). Plans must be submitted to the Indio Office of the Fire Marshal for review and be approved prior to installation.

Reference CRC.

42. Phased Construction Access and Water Supply: If construction is phased, an approved phasing plan shall be approved by the Fire Department. Each phase shall provide approved access and water supply for fire protection prior to any construction.

Reference CFC as amended.

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

44. Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan – Projects in the Local Responsibility Area, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and State Responsibility Area, Very High, High and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall provide a Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.

45. Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure - Projects in the Local Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and State Responsibility Area, Responsibility Area, Very High, High and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall comply with Chapter 3, R337 of the California Residential Code and California Code of Regulations Title 14 Fire Safety Regulations. Reference CFC as amended.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 654 of 825

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

47. The project proponent will be required to provide and bear all costs associated with acquisition of land, rights of way, easements, and infrastructure relocations and realignments deemed necessary to accommodate the project. Any street or road improvements imposed by the local governing authority shall also be at the project proponent cost.

48. Public utility easements over all private and public roads and additional ten (10) feet in width on both side of the private and public roads shall be dedicated to IID for the construction, operation, and maintenance of its electrical infrastructure.

49. Any new, relocated, modified or reconstructed IID facilities required for and by the project (which may include but is not limited to the dedication of real property for the purpose of siting an electrical utility substations to support the project, the co st of acquisition and dedication of rights of way and/or easements for the construction of electrical transmission and/or distribution lines and ancillary facilities associated with the conveyance of energy service) are to be included as part of the projec t’s CEQA and/or NEPA documentation, environmental impact analysis and mitigation.

50. The applicant will be required to provide rights of ways and easements for any proposed power line extensions and/or any other infrastructure needed to serve the project. In addition, the necessary access to allow for continued operation and maintenance of any IID facilities located on adjoining properties where no public access exists.

51. Substations and switchyards shall be located on property that will transferred to IID in fee simple ownership with legal access.

52. Transmission and distribution poles and reconfiguration of lines with the addition of new substation switchgear with backbone line(s) extensions, distribution getaways, and distribution feeders will be required, all of which are at the expense of the Developer.

53. The transformer bank addition is anticipated to be constructed under a cost -sharing arrangement and/or reimbursement agreement involving one or more Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). While your project is not solely responsible for the full cost of the substation, it will be required to contribute a pro rata share of the total cost. Your financial contribution will be facilitated through one or more cost -share or reimbursement agreements, or other financing arrangements reasonably acceptable to IID. If for any reason the substation is not constructed under the above mechanisms, your project may be required to directly support or facilitate its construction.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 655 of 825

54. Developer is required to extend a minimum of one feeder (conduit and cable) from the substation site to the proposed development. In addition, Developer will be required to install the necessary conduit/vault systems following the Permanent Plan of Service and distribution getaways conduit systems from the Avenue 40 Substation.

55. A more detailed feasibility study will be developed once a Customer Service Proposal (CSP) application and city approved plans (including loading calculations} are received and cost of any additional technical assessment shall be borne by the developer. Th e District's ability to provide service from existing distribution lines is based upon current available capacity, and is contingent upon this development's construction phasing and progress in the area. The project must progress toward completion or IID i s unable to hold system capacity to the detriment of other customers.

56. Developer will be required to install the necessary double conduit/vault systems following the Permanent Plan of Service and bear all costs associated with the engineering design and construction costs related to the additional facilities deemed necessary, including but not limited to a second 28 MVA 13.2/92 KV Bank at Avenue 40 Substation and the installation of additional substation switchgear for distribution getaways, distribution feeder breakers, backbone line extension and or upgrades/reconfigurations and any civil work deemed necessary to serve their project.

This is all pursuant to existing IID regulations and/or approval by the IID Board of Directors.

57. Please be advised that pursuant to IID process, the standard time frame for the new substation transformers acquisition (engineering, equipment procurement, and construction) requires a minimum of 24 months. As a result, Developer should adjust its project in-service dates accordingly. The procurement of the substation second 28 MVA transformer will commence upon receipt of the Customer Service Proposal for the substation transformer acquisition, including customer payment for the required substation upgrade and equipment deemed necessary.

58. Developer shall bear all costs associated with the construction of any additional facilities deemed necessary including, but not limited to, the new substation facilities, transmission line extensions, distribution getaways, distribution feeder breakers, feeder backbones and distribution overhead and/or underground line extensions and upgrades necessary to extend electrical service to the proposed development.

Additional requirements, including but not limited to, environmental compliance documentation, landscaping (if required by the City or County) and all rights -of-way and easements for the substation, and access rights for both ingress and egress, as well as power line facilities may be necessary, all of which are at the expense of the Developer.

59. Underground infrastructure of any additional facilities needed including conduit/vault systems that includes trenching, conduits, pull boxes, switch boxes and pads should Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 656 of 825 be installed at the Developer's expense following IID approved plans and within the public utility easement (PUE) or a dedicated easement, if applicable. Physical field installation of underground infrastructures should be verified and approved by an IID inspector Additional Guide. IID Developer's as installation cable to prior per requirements may be necessary, such as environmental compliance documentation, and rights all -of-line and extensions distribution and for easements way the underground infrastructure are at the expense of the developer.

60. Line extensions to serve the development will be made in accordance with IID Regulation No. 15, Regulation No. 2 and Regulation No.13. The final cost will be determined Proposal Customer Service submits a once developer/builder the application and final design is completed.

61. Any new, relocated, modified or reconstructed IID facilities required for and by the project (which can include but is not limited to electrical utility substations, electrical transmission and distribution lines, etc.) need to be included as part of the p roject's California Environmental Quality Act National Energy Policy Act and/or documentation, environmental impact analysis and mitigation. Failure to do so will result in postponement of any construction and/or modification of IID facilities until the environmental documentation is amended and environmental impacts are fully mitigated. Any and all mitigation necessary as a result of the construction, relocation and/or upgrade of IID facilities is the responsibility of the project proponent.

62. Please take note that, due to circumstances unknown to IID and unforeseen development, other projects could impact existing resources, which may affect IID's ability to serve this load if the project does not move forward to completion in a timely manner.

63. The project is located within the service area of Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for the provision of domestic water and sanitation service. The initiation of said service to this area will be subject to the satisfaction of terms and conditions established by CVWD and imposed from time to time, including but not limited to fees and charges, water conservation measures, etc.

64. CVWD may need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include pipelines, wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations, lift stations, treatment plants and other facilities.

The developer may be required to construct/install these facilities and then convey said facilities to CVWD along with the land and/or easements on which these facilities will The terms and conditions for the planning, design, be located. construction/installation, and conveyance of property interests shall be determined by CVWD pursuant to its rules and regulations as said requirements may be revised from time to time. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots and/or easements to be deeded to CVWD for "CVWD public services" purposes.

65. This notice of domestic water and sanitation service availability only applies to the specific property for which it was issued and shall expire three (3) years from date of Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 657 of 825 issuance. Unless or until all requirements for the initiation of service are met, the developer shall not be deemed to have any vested right or other commitment to receive water and/or sanitation service. In the event all of the terms, conditions, fees and charges are not satisfied on or before the expiration date, this notice shall expire.

Upon expiration, the developer will be required to submit a new application and otherwise comply with any and all new or amended requirements for the provision of service as may be determined by CVWD pursuant to its rules and regulations.

66. Domestic water and sanitation service remains at all times subject to changes in regulations adopted by CVWD's Board of Directors including reductions in, or suspensions of, service.

67. lies within the East Whitewater The Subbasin Area of Benefit. project River Groundwater production within the area of benefit is subject to a replenishment assessment in accordance with the State Water Code.

68. Any entity producing more than 25 acre -feet of water during any year from one or more wells must equip the well(s) with a water -measuring device. A CVWD Water Production Metering Agreement is required to provide CVWD staff with the authority to regularly read and maintain this water-measuring device.

69. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is a law requiring that groundwater basins are managed to achieve sustainability. In accordance with the SGMA, CVWD submitted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan as an alternative to a Groundwater Su stainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the Indio Subbasin. On July 17, 2019, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) sent a notification approving the Alternative Plan. The goal of the Alternative Plan is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost -effective and sustainable manner. This development lies within the Indio Subbasin and will contribute to the total water demand in the subbasin. The elements and actions described in the Alternative Plan shall be incorporated into the design, co nstruction, and operation of this development to reduce its negative impact on the Indio Subbasin.

70. Given that the plan submitted is preliminary/conceptual in nature, comments above and below may not be all-inclusive. Additional comments may be generated at time of formal building plan check submittal.

71. A complete building plan check submittal will be required for all residential units, ADUs, leasing/amenity building, walls, gates, trash enclosures, carports, shade structures, and all associated site improvements.

72. At time of building plan check submittal, provide complete architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, energy, CALGreen, and accessibility plans and calculations.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 658 of 825

73. Provide complete code analysis on plans including occupancy classifications, type of construction, fire sprinkler requirements, allowable area analysis, occupant loads, and height/area calculations for all buildings.

74. The plans indicate NFPA 13 fire sprinklers for the leasing/amenity building and NFPA 13D systems for residential units. Separate deferred submittals and permits will be required through the Fire Department for fire sprinkler systems and any required fire alarm systems.

75. Provide accessible parking calculations and show all required accessible parking stalls, signage, striping, slopes, and accessible routes in compliance with CBC Chapter 11B.

76. Provide and show accessible paths of travel from the public right -of-way to the leasing/amenity building, common areas, mail area, dog park, and all accessible residential units.

77. Accessible dwelling units and adaptable units shall comply with CBC Chapter 11A requirements. Provide required accessibility details and unit calculations for all proposed residential units and ADUs. The plans identify 11B mobility units; clarify accessibility scoping and applicable code sections.

78. Verify whether the proposed gated entry system and call box comply with Fire Department and Public Works access requirements.

79. Clarify emergency vehicle access and turning radii for all internal drive aisles. Final approval subject to Fire Department review.

80. Provide complete photovoltaic system information at time of building permit submittal, including roof layouts, equipment locations, structural support information, electrical plans, and energy compliance documentation. The project description references photovoltaic systems.

81. A Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) will be required at time of building permit plan check submittal in accordance with CALGreen.

82. Provide complete exterior lighting plans including fixture schedules, photometric plans, and shielding details. Exterior lighting shall not create glare onto adjacent properties.

83. Clarify trash collection operations and access for Burrtec, including truck maneuvering and access to trash enclosure areas.

84. All walls, fences, gates, monument signs, trash enclosures, and accessory structures will require separate Building & Safety review and permits unless specifically included within the approved building permit set.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 659 of 825

85. Provide complete structural calculations and details for all carports, shade structures, retaining walls, perimeter walls, monument signs, and accessory structures.

86. Verify and coordinate all required utility services, including water, sewer, electrical, gas, storm drain, and dry utility requirements with applicable utility agencies.

87. Provide complete grading, drainage, hydrology, and stormwater documentation subject to Engineering/Public Works review and approval.

88. Verify flood zone requirements and compliance with applicable floodplain management regulations, if applicable.

89. The tentative tract map shall be recorded prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.

Prior to Final Map Approval:

90. Applicant shall submit a copy of the Final Map to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for their review and shall obtain a clearance letter from CVWD prior to recordation of the Final Map.

91. 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. Hydrology Report

92. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

a. Final Tract Map
b. Title Report (updated within at least 60 days)
c. Final Map Closure Calculations
d. Auto CAD & GIS Shape File for Final Tract Map
e. All back-up information for map references (easement documents, maps, etc.)

93. Final Tract Map shall include:

a. Street Names
b. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
c. Improvement Bonds

94. Applicant shall provide a 10 -foot public utility easement along both sides of the proposed streets in addition to over the entire street width.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 660 of 825

95. Applicant/Property Owner shall be responsible 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 all frontage landscaping along Avenue 39 and Dreams Lane.

96. If applicable, a copy of the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and approval with maintenance provisions flagged.

97. If applicable, t he Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded prior to recordation of final map.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit:

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the following conditions of approval:

98. Applicant shall comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements per state regulations, contact information is as follows:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Colorado River Basin Region,
73-720 Fred Waring Drive #100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-7491
www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver

*Please note: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a copy of the NOI (Notice of Intent) and the WDID# (Waste Discharge Identification No.), shall be filed with the City of Indio’s Engineering Division.

99. Applicant shall submit PM10 (Dust Control) implementation plans for City approval. Also, to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for grading plans greater than 10 acres in size. For further information contact the:

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(800) CUT-SMOG (288-7664)

100. Applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan for City approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit.

101. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

a. Rough Grading Plans
Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 661 of 825 b. Precise Grading Plans – shall include the street address for each lot and building footprint
c. Soils Report
d. Hydrology Report

102. Retaining walls shall be required at elevational differences greater than 12 inches between adjacent boundary properties (if applicable) unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

103. Applicant shall use Riverside County Flood Control District standards and submit local on-site and regional hydrology, hydraulic storm calculations for City review and approval.

104. Applicant shall provide on -site water retention basin(s) or system(s) storm designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Each retention basin shall include a sufficient number of underground vertical drywells, Maxwell Plus or equivalent, designed to eliminate standing water in the basin. The retention basin(s) or system(s) shall be sized to retain all post-development storm water runoff within the limits of the project based on a 100 -year storm event of 24 -hour duration and shall completely drain /percolate any storm event within 72 hours. All upstream runoff from adjacent properties that has historically been directed onto the proposed project may be considered to pass through the project with the exception of historical retention that occurred on-site. The retention basin shall be designed, per Standard Plan No. 310, with a maximum depth of 5 feet (with a one foot minimum freeboard) and maximum side slopes of 3:1 and shall not be used for purposes other than for the collection of storm water, nuisance water and well blow - off water.

105. Applicant shall collect stormwater flows from Avenue 39 and Dreams Lane and convey them to the onsite stormwater retention basins/system or coordinate with Coachella Valley Water District to convey the stormwater flows to their regional storm channel.

106. The design of the lot pads, street improvements and the storm drainage improvements shall be design coordinated with all adjacent projects to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

107. All grading and pad elevations will be subject to approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer based on grading plans and additional information to be submitted during plan check.

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the following conditions of approval:

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 662 of 825 108. Applicant shall:

e. Dispose of all concrete and asphalt removals from the proposed project to an approved recyclable site.
f. Applicant shall provide City of Indio Public Works Department with a copy of receipt showing tonnage for the disposal of recyclable concrete and asphalt.
g. Dispose of all material removals from the proposed project to an approved disposal site.

109. The proposed project shall comply with American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

110. Applicant shall submit for City approval the following items:

a. Street Improvement Plans
b. Signing and Striping Plans
c. Storm Drain Improvement Plans
d. Street Light Plans
e. Landscape and Irrigation Plans

111. Applicant shall construct off-site street improvements on the following streets:

a. Avenue 39, one-half street improvements (north side) b) Dreams Lane, one-half street improvements (east side)

112. The improvements shall include construction of asphalt concrete pavement, curb/gutter, signing and striping, sidewalk, streetlights, storm drain system (catch basins, storm drain pipe, etc.) and fully landscaped and irrigated parkways along the property frontages.

113. Avenue 39 shall be constructed as a “Boulevard” with painted median per the City of Indio General Plan Circulation Element (40 feet from centerline to right-of-way and 32 feet from centerline to curb).

114. Dreams Lane shall be constructed as a “ Collector,” per the City of Indio General Plan Circulation Element (30 feet from centerline to right -of-way and 21 feet from centerline to curb).

115. All off-site street improvements including energizing of street lights and installation of irrigation and landscaping along:

a. Avenue 39 and Dreams Lane shall be constructed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy.

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 663 of 825 116. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit prior to starting any street improvements within public streets.

117. The corner cutback at the intersection of:

a. Avenue 39 and Dreams Lane shall be per City of Indio Standard Plan No. 143.

118. The minimum grade on all proposed streets shall be 0.50%.

119. The minimum curb return radius for public streets shall be:

a. R = 35 feet and for
b. Private streets R=20 feet

120. The minimum drive aisle width shall be 24 feet, or wider if required for Fire Department access.

121. All street cul-de-sacs shall be per City of Indio Standard Plan No. 140 and 141.

122. All street knuckles shall be per City of Indio Standard Plan No. 142.

123. Proposed gates shall be located at a minimum of 50 feet from Avenue 39 curb face.

124. Street addresses shall be shown on Precise Grading Plans.

125. All improvements shall comply with City standards, requirements and policies.

Applicant shall construct all transition and missing links between existing and proposed improvements, per the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

126. Applicant shall submit signage and striping plans for City approval.

127. All overhead utilities under 92 kV located within the project boundaries, along or bordering the project frontage, and/or associated with any required off -site electrical runs beyond the project site shall be undergrounded (or overhead), at the discretion of the Community Development Director.

SECTION 5. The Community Development Director shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

/ / /

/ / /

Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 664 of 825 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of May 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Franz, Ortiz, Santos, Scarborough-Eckel, Slater
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

_____________________________

GLORIA FRANZ

PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:

_______________________

PAULINA MENDOZA

COMMISSION SECRETARY
Docusign Envelope ID: AE04DDA4-327B-8DD7-8028-BE33FD59C1B0

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 665 of 825

Vicinity Map

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 666 of 825 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
G0-1 COVER SHEET
Sheet Index
General:

Cover Sheet G0-1
Site Context G0-2
Civil:
1 of 1Site Development Plan
Landscape Architecture:

L1.0Landscape Site Plan
L2.0Enlarged Area Plans
Architecture:

A1-0 Site Plan
A1-1 Fire Access Site Plan
A1-2 Phasing Plan
A2-1Floor Plan & Elevations
A2-2Floor Plan & Elevations
A2-3Floor Plan & Elevations
A2-4Floor Plan & Elevations
A2-5Floor Plans - Leasing & Amenities Building
A2-6Elevations - Leasing & Amenities Building
A3-1Color Board
A4-1Renderings
A4-2Renderings
A4-3Renderings
A4-4Renderings
10 FWY
Vicinity MapPROJECT SITE

JEFFERSON STREET

ADAMS STREET
AVE 39
AVE 40
APPLICANT:

Etapes Corporation
13681 Newport Ave, #8230
Tustin, Ca 92780
Attn: John Okura
[email protected]
ARCHITECT:

KTGY Group Inc.
17911 Von Karman Ave #200
Irvine, CA 92614
Attn: Keith Labus
[email protected]
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

Etd
13681 Newport Ave, #8230
Tustin, Ca 92780
Attn: Tung Tran
[email protected]
CIVIL:

United Civil Inc.
30141 Agoura Road, Suite 215
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Attn: Anthony Ng
[email protected]
Description:

Proposed development of a sustainable and high-quality new construction of 31 single family residential lots on a 10.07-acre vacant parcel. The project will be developed as an affordable rental housing first and may be converted to market rate rental or for-sale if it is not able to secure tax credit financing.

Project Description:

Roadrunner Flats will be primarily developed as a sustainable and high-quality new construction project of 31 single family residential lots with ADU for affordable rental housing targeting affordable low and moderate households ranging from 30% AMI to 70% AMI on a 10-acre vacant parcel. Each lot will consist of a four-bedroom (~1,477 sf) or a three-bedroom (~1,230 sf) single-story primary home with either unit a three-bedroom (~1,195 sf) or a two-bedroom (~1,006 sf) ADU unit. All units will include a complete energy efficient appliance package with refrigerator, electric stove/oven, range hood, dishwasher, garbage disposal, vinyl plank flooring, carpet, window coverings. Each unit will have its own private patio area and two parking spaces (with one enclosed garage) accessible from rear alleyway. The design will draw on the regional desert landscape and scenery blending natural materials, drought tolerant and native plants and water efficient irrigation. The project will have multiple amenities including leasing office, clubhouse and lounge area with one three-bedroom manager's unit (~1,510 sf) on the second floor, open space with playground and tot lot, BBQ, indoor fitness center, outdoor fitness areas, and a dog run. The site will be secured with fences and gates with key fob control access. Perimeter site retaining walls up to four feet with six feet masonry wall may be required depending on verification of site topography survey and as-built plans. Roadrunner Flats may be financed in two phases but constructed simultaneously. If so, Phase 1 will have 33 units and Phase 2 have 28 units. The project is intended to have one irrigation water meter for the common landscaped areas and one main domestic water meter with sub-meter to each unit. Tenants will pay for their own utility usage including electricity, water, trash, cable, and internet. Common areas will be maintained by property management. In case project is not able to secure tax credits, we will pursue either market-rate for rent or for-sale development as an alternative which we look for City to incorporate into the project Conditions of Approval. If market rate for-sale, no community building and amenities spaces will be provided. Market rate for rent will still have the community space and amenities similar to affordable for rent.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 667 of 825 DROP INLET564.42
D
MH-SD566.13
S00° 11' 33"E

0.20'
N89° 48' 27"E 658.50'
658.50'
S89° 49' 03"W 658.40'
S00° 23' 13"W 666.14'
N00° 22' 42"E 666.03'

CHAINLINK FENCE ON PL
CHAINLINK FENCE 0.2' S.

HOG WIRE FENCE 1.11' N.

30.00'

ESTABLISHED BY SPLIT OF THE
SE CORNER OF PARCEL 3

AND THE SW CORNER OF
PARCEL4
SNF

ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION
EXISTING IMPROVED ROAD.

ASSESSORS MAP SHOWS A 30' EASEMENT.

TITLE REPORT HAS NO INFORMATION ON ANY EASEMENT OR DEDICATION.

THIS ROAD APPEARS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
64 0 32 128
G0-2 Site Context
1 23
Site Plan - Existing Conditions
1 2
4 3
4 Avenue 39
Desert Ridge Academy
Property Line
Property Line
Property Line
Property Line
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 668 of 825

WILKINS
375

PROPOSEDDEDICATION

VICINITY MAP
PREPARED BY:

REVISION BLOCK

E SIGTR
L CA
N
N
E
EXP.12-31-26
NO.46026

STATE CIVI
FO SI
IA

LIFORN G
REE
S

W RPDERE

SEFOHUA
NEANO
L
IT

IGUNITED CIVIL INC
30141 Agoura Road, Suite 215
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PH: (818) 707-8648

CITY OF INDIO
OWNER/DEVELOPER:

SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AVENUE 39 & DREAMS LANE
INDIO, CA 92203

PROJECT
SITE
AVENUE 40
AVENUE 39 AVENUE 38

VARNER ROAD
INTERSTATE 10

COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE

JEFFERSON
STREET

YOUNGS WAY

DREAMS LANE

RANCHO LOS
CERRITOS DR.

RANCHO LOS
COYOTES DR.

ADAMS STREET
AVENUE 42
INDIO
CC

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39405

IN THE CITY OF INDIO, RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WW
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39405
SCALE: 1" =30'
0 60
30 90
DD
BB
AA

ROADRUNNER FLATS

ROADRUNNER FLATS

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 669 of 825

OPEN SPACE
E.V. USPS
T
R
T
R
TR
T
R
ENLARGED AREA 4
ENLARGED AREA 2 ENLARGED AREA 3
ENLARGED AREA 1
1 2
4 3
11 7
89 9
13 13
14 14
15 PHASE I

PHASE II

PHASE I

PHASE II
TR
10 6
11 5
16 LEGEND

1. Monument Sign on CMU Wall

2. 6' Wide Sidewalk

3. 6' High CMU Perimeter Wall

4. Landscape Boulders

5. Call Box

6. Underground Storm Water Chamber

7. Fenced Dog Run

8. Bench Seating

9. Outdoor Fitness Station

10. Waste Station

11. 6' High Metal Gate & Fence

12. Pedestrian Gate

13. Front and Side Yard Landscape

14. Private Patio

15. Lawn Area

16. EVA Access Gate
L1-0LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
0 40 8020
March 11, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS

Etapes Corporation

STREET TREE
Quercus virginiana 'Heritage"
Southern Live Oak

ENTRY TREE
Phoenix dactylifera
Date Palm

ENTRY ACCENT TREE
Sophora secumdiflora
Texas Mountain Laurel

OPEN SPACE
E.V.

USPS
TR
T
R
T R
T R
ENLARGED AREA 4
ENLARGED AREA 2ENLARGED AREA 3
ENLARGED AREA 1
1 2
4 3
11 7
8 99
13 13
14 14
15 PHASE I

PHASE II

PHASE IPHASE II
T R
10 6
11 5
16 LEGEND

1. Monument Sign on CMU Wall

2. 6' Wide Sidewalk

3. 6' High CMU Perimeter Wall

4. Landscape Boulders

5. Call Box

6. Underground Storm Water Chamber

7. Fenced Dog Run

8. Bench Seating

9. Outdoor Fitness Station

10. Waste Station

11. 6' High Metal Gate & Fence

12. Pedestrian Gate

13. Front and Side Yard Landscape

14. Private Patio

15. Lawn Area

16. EVA Access Gate

STREET TREE
Quercus virginiana 'Heritage"
Southern Live Oak

ENTRY TREE
Phoenix dactylifera
Date Palm

ENTRY ACCENT TREE
Sophora secumdiflora
Texas Mountain Laurel

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 670 of 825 E.V.

USPS
TR
TR
T
R
1 3
3 2
2 65
7 11
10 1512
13 14
4 Private
Yard
Private
Yard
6 T
R
16 8
9 P4-1P4-1
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Front YardFront Yard
P2-1
(ADU)
P4-1
P4-1 P3-1A
(ADU)
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Front Yard
Front Yard
Front Yard
P3-2P2-1
(ADU)
P3-2P2-1
(ADU)
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Private
Yard
Front Yard
Front YardFront Yard
Underground Storm Water Chamber
LEGEND

1. Enhanced Paving

2. Planters

3. Bike Racks

4. Landscape Boulders

5. Trellis

6. Tables and Benches

7. Outdoor BBQ

8. Bench Seating

9. Outdoor Fitness Station

10. Trash Receptacle

11. Drinking Fountain

12. Playground

13. Game Area

14. Seating Area

15. Lawn Area

16. Mailbox
L2-0 ENLARGED AREA PLANS
02040 10March 11, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS

Etapes Corporation
4ENLARGED AREA - COMMON AREA COURTYARD
1' = 20' - 0"
3ENLARGED AREA - TYPICAL 4-BED UNIT LANDSCAPE
1' = 20' - 0"
2ENLARGED AREA - TYPICAL 4-BED UNIT LANDSCAPE
1' = 20' - 0"
1ENLARGED AREA - TYPICAL 3-BED UNIT LANDSCAPE
1' = 20' - 0"

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 671 of 825

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 672 of 825

OPEN SPACE/

STORM WATER
E.V.

USPS

OPEN SPACE/

STORM WATER

DETENTIONDETENTI
E.V.

USPS
WILKINS 375
24'-0"
24'-0"

24.0'RADIUS

24.0'

20.0'

24.0'

24.0'

24.0'
RADIUS

HOSE PULL
150' maximum hose pull length

FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet, exclusive of shoulders

TURNING RADIUS
The minimum inside turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 14 feet. The minimum outside turning radius shall be 38 feet.

LEGEND
R14'-0"R38'-0"
Avenue 39
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
Tot-
Lot
Future Dreams Lane
04080 20
Leasing and
Amenity
Building
Patio

LEASING & AMENITY BUILDING
2-STORIES
OCCUPANCY: A-3,B, R-3
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:VB
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME
1-STORY
OCCUPANCY: R-3
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D

GATED ENTRY WITH

POLE-MOUNTED KNOX BOX

EXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING HYDRANT
A1-1 Fire Access Site Plan
Phase II
Phase I
Phase IIPhase I

GATED ENTRY WITH

POLE-MOUNTED KNOX BOX
(EVA ONLY)

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 673 of 825 WILKINS375

OPEN SPACE/

STORM WATER

DETENTION
E.V.

USPS

OPEN SPACE/

STORM WATER

DETENTION
E.V.

USPS
WILKINS 375
Avenue 39
Project Entry
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
Phasing Plan
Phase 1 Summary:

Dwelling Units17 DUs
ADUs16 ADUs
Total Units33 Units
Parking Summary:

TypeTotal Spaces
Carport (9'-0"x19'-0")±30 Spaces
Garage (10'-0"x20'-0")±31 Spaces
Garage (17'-6"x20'-0")±00 Spaces
Garage (20'-0"x20'-0")±04 Spaces
Guest Spaces ±33 Spaces
Total±98 Spaces
Note: Street Improvements of Avenue 39 and Future "Dreams Lane" will be included in the construction of Phase 1. All improvements on-site will be indicated by the Phasing Line on the Phasing Plan.

Phase 2 Summary:

Dwelling Units14 DUs
ADUs14 ADUs
Total Units28 Units
Parking Summary:

TypeTotal Spaces
Carport (9'-0"x19'-0")±25 Spaces
Garage (10'-0"x20'-0")±23 Spaces
Garage (17'-6"x20'-0")±03 Spaces
Garage (20'-0"x20'-0")±04 Spaces
Guest Spaces ±20 Spaces
Total±75 Spaces
Tot-
Lot
Future Dreams Lane
04080 20
A1-2 Phasing Plan
Leasing and
Amenity
Building
Future Resident Parking
P4-1 P4-1
P4-1
P4-1A
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1
P2-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-2
P3-2 P3-2
P3-2P3-2
P3-2
P4-1P4-1
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1Patio
P4-1
P4-1
P4-1A
Dog Park
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1A
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1A
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P3-2
P3-2
P3-2
P3-2
P2-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
P3-1A
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P2-1
(ADU)
P3-1
(ADU)
Property Line
Phase IIPhase I
Phase II
Phase I
P4-1A P4-1A

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 674 of 825 UNIT PLAN 2-1 (ADU)
2 BEDROOMS

1.5 BATHROOMS
1006 SQ. FT.
20 OCCURRENCES
±29'-7"
±53'-7"
±14'-0"
±9'-1"
T.O.Plate
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.November 5th, 2025
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
04080 20
A2-1 Floor Plans & Elevations
Unit Plan 2-1

CARPORT
GARAGE

BEDROOM

WALK-IN-
CLOSET
MASTER

BEDROOM
BATH
ROOM

KITCHEN/
DINING
LIVING
COATS

LAUNDRY
PORCH
ENTRY
LINENS
POWDER
ROOM
WH
Front Elevation
Right Elevation
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Material Legend

1. Stucco

2. Stucco Over Foam

3. 2x6 Painted Fascia Board

4. Vinyl Window With Stucco Trim Surround

5. Decorative Outrigger

6. Painted Apartment Entry Door

7. Pre-Finished Garage Door

8. French Door

9. Asphalt Composite Shingles
1 2 3459 6
134 5 9
13 4 91 8 4
52 7 139 2
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Left Elevation
7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,
March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 675 of 825 UNIT PLAN 3-1 (ADU)
3 BEDROOMS
2 BATHROOMS
1192 SQ. FT.
10 OCCURRENCES
11B-MOBILITY
±27'-11"
±66'-5"
±14'-2"
±9'-1"
T.O.Plate
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.November 5th, 2025
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
04080 20
A2-2 Floor Plans & Elevations
Unit Plan 3-1
GARAGE

CARPORT

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
BATH
ROOM
BATH
ROOM

KITCHEN
LIVING
ENTRY
COATS
PORCH

WALK-IN-
CLOSET
DINING

LIN LAUNDRY
WH
Front Elevation
Right Elevation
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Material Legend

1. Stucco

2. Stucco Over Foam

3. 2x6 Painted Fascia Board

4. Vinyl Window With Stucco Trim Surround
123 4 59 5. Decorative Outrigger

6. Painted Apartment Entry Door

7. Pre-Finished Garage Door

8. French Door

9. Asphalt Composite Shingles
6 13 4 91 8
57 139 2
5 3 4 91 1
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Left Elevation
7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,
March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 676 of 825 UNIT PLAN 3-2
3 BEDROOMS
2 BATHROOMS
1230 SQ. FT.
10 OCCURRENCES
±42'-0"
±54'-0"
±12'-10"
±9'-1"
T.O.Plate
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.November 5th, 2025
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
4 0 2 8
A2-3 Floor Plans & Elevations
Unit Plan 3-2
GARAGE

CARPORT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
COATS
BATH
ROOM
BATH
ROOM

WALK-IN-
CLOSET

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
ENTRY
PORCH

BEDROOM
WH

LIN LAUNDRY
Front Elevation
Right Elevation
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Material Legend

1. Stucco

2. Stucco Over Foam

3. 2x6 Painted Fascia Board

4. Vinyl Window With Stucco Trim Surround

5. Decorative Outrigger

6. Painted Apartment Entry Door

7. Pre-Finished Garage Door

8. French Door

9. Asphalt Composite Shingles
12 3459
1 23 45 9 6
3 4 91
8 4
5 27 13 9 1
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Left Elevation
7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,
March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 677 of 825 UNIT PLAN 4-1
4 BEDROOMS
2 BATHROOMS
1477 SQ. FT.
20 OCCURRENCES
11B-MOBILITY
±38'-6"
±60'-11"
±14'-2"
±9'-1"
T.O.Plate
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.November 5th, 2025
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
4 2 0 8
A2-4 Floor Plans & Elevations
Unit Plan 4-1
GARAGE

CARPORT

KITCHEN

DININGLIVING
COATS
BATH
ROOM
BATH
ROOM

WALK-IN-
CLOSET

BEDROOM

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
PORCH
WH

LAUNDRY
LIN
Front Elevation
Right Elevation
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Material Legend

1. Stucco

2. Stucco Over Foam

3. 2x6 Painted Fascia Board

4. Vinyl Window With Stucco Trim Surround

5. Decorative Outrigger

6. Painted Apartment Entry Door

7. Pre-Finished Garage Door

8. French Door

9. Asphalt Composite Shingles
125 364
1 9
73 254 8 9
1 3 54 9
1 3 54 92
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Left Elevation
7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,7th,
March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 678 of 825 ±84'-7"
±76'-9"
1st Floor
4434 SQ. FT.
±13'-2"
±20'-2"
±42'-3"
±45'-9"
2nd Floor
1510 SQ. FT.
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
048 12
A2-5 Floor Plans
Leasing & Amenities Building

CLUBROOM

CLASS ROOM

WOMEN'S
MEN'S

FITNESS
LOBBY
WORK

ROOM BREAK ROOM

OFFICEOFFICE

USPS & PARCEL
BOXES

ELECTRICAL
CLOSET

SERVICE
OFFICE
STOR.
1-CAR
GARAGE

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING

WALK-IN-
CLOSET
PORCH
WH

LAUNDRY

WALK-IN-
CLOSET

WALK-IN-
CLOSET
BATH
ROOM
BATH
ROOM
LINENS

BEDROOM BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
DECK
60 sf
PATIO
MOTOR
COURT
COATS
R
T
March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

LAUNDRY ROOM
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 679 of 825 ±16'-3"
±10'-1"
T.O.Plate
±11'-1"
T.O.Plate
±22'-8"
±9'-1"
T.O.Plate
±9'-1"
Level 2
T.O.Plate
±22'-8"
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
048 12
A2-6 Exterior Elevations
Leasing & Amenities Building
South Elevation - Front
East Elevation
North Elevation
West Elevation
Material Legend

1. Stucco

2. Stucco Over Foam

3. 2x8 Painted Fascia Board

4. Vinyl Window With Stucco Trim Surround

5. Decorative Outrigger

6. Painted Apartment Entry Door

7. Pre-Finished Garage Door

8. French Door

9. Asphalt Composite Shingles

10. Satin Anodized Aluminum Storefront

11. Decorative Sconce

12. Vertical Picket Metal Railing
128 11
11 11
1110
10 10 9
9 9
9 7
65 510 10
5 4
4 4
4 3
3 3
32 2
21 1 1
1 85
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 680 of 825 02 48
A3-1 Color Board
COLOR SCHEME 1
Unit 4-1 Front Elevation - Color Scheme 1
COLOR SCHEME 2
STUCCO BODY 2 / FOAM TRIM
SW 6277 - Special Greay or Similair

FASCIA/ CORBELS
SW 7035 - Aesthetic White or Similair

ACCENT DOOR
SW 7604 - Smoky Blue or Similair

ASPHALT SHINGLES
Certainteed Landmark Shingles
Pewter or Similair

VINYL WINDOW
Milgard Windows
White
COLOR SCHEME 3
Unit 4-1 Front Elevation - Color Scheme 2
Unit 4-1 Front Elevation - Color Scheme 3
888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437

ASPHALT SHINGLES
Certainteed Landmark Shingles
Pewter or Similair

ASPHALT SHINGLES
Certainteed Landmark Shingles
Pewter or Similair
STUCCO BODY 1 / FOAM TRIM
SW 7036 - Accessible Beige or Similair
STUCCO BODY 2 / FOAM TRIM
SW 9174 - Moth Wing or Similair

FASCIA/ ACCENT
SW 7047 - Porpoise or Similair

ACCENT DOOR
SW 6704 - Hep Green or Similair

VINYL WINDOW
Milgard Windows
White

CORBELS
SW 7043 - Worldly Gray or Similair
STUCCO BODY 1 / FOAM TRIM
SW 7035 - Aesthetic White or Similair
STUCCO BODY 2 / FOAM TRIM
SW 9171 - Felted Wool or Similair

FASCIA/ ACCENT
SW 7048 - Urbane Bronze or Similair

ACCENT DOOR
SW 7593 - Rustic Red or Similair

VINYL WINDOW
Milgard Windows
White

CORBELS
SW 7043 - Worldly Gray or Similair
STUCCO BODY 1 / FOAM TRIM
SW 7035 - Aesthetic White or Similair
ACCENT
SW 7048 - Urbane Bronze or Similair
March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 681 of 825 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
A4-1 Renderings
Aerial View Of Project

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 682 of 825 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
A4-2 Renderings
View of Leasing And Amenities Building
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 683 of 825 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
A4-3 Renderings
Aerial View Of Common Courtyard
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 684 of 825 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com
No.March 11th, 2026
Conceptual Phase
Indio, CA

ROADRUNNER FLATS
20240437
A4-4 Renderings
View Of Unit Plan 4-1
April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026April 14th, 2026 March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026March 11th, 2026 Conceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual PhaseConceptual Phase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 685 of 825 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 39405IN THE CITY OF INDIO,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" =30'0
6030
90 PREPARED BY:UNITED CIVIL INC30141 Agoura Road, Suite 215Agoura Hills, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648MAP NO. 39405CITY OF INDIOTENTATIVE TRACTPROJECTSITEAVENUE 40AVENUE 39AVENUE 38 VARNER ROADINTERSTATE 10COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE

JEFFERSONSTREET
YOUNGS WAYDREAMS LANERANCHO LOSCERRITOS DR.RANCHO LOSCOYOTES DR.ADAMS STREET AVENUE 42
INDIO

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo...Page 686 of 825 Tentative Tract Map and Planning
Review Discretionary
Roadrunner Flats
City of Indio General Plan Environmental
Impact Report CEQA Guidelines Section
15183 Exemption Checklist
April 2026
Prepared for:

City of Indio
Community Development
Planning Services Division
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
Attn: Gustavo Gomez, Principal Planner
Prepared by:

Birdseye Planning Group, LLC
P.O. Box 1956
Vista, California 92805
(760) 712-2199
Ryan Birdseye, Principal Planner

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 687 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 i April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... iv Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ................................................ 1

1.2 Indio General Plan Update .............................................................................. 2

1.3 Project Overview ............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Applicability of State Guidelines Section 15183 .............................................. 3

1.5 Content and Organization of This Exemption Checklist .................................. 5

1.6 General Plan Update PE IR ............................................................................... 5 Section 2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 7

2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................... 7

2.2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................ 7

2.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation ............................................... 7

2.4 Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning Designations ................ 10

2.5 General Plan Update ..................................................................................... 10 Section 3 Project Description .............................................................................................. 12

3.1 Project Description ........................................................................................ 12

3.2 Discretionary Approvals ................................................................................. 14 Section 4 Environmental Checklist ..................................................................................... 15

4.1 Background ................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................... 16

4.3 Determination (to Be Completed by the Lead Agency) ................................. 17

4.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 18 Section 5 Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................... 20

5.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 20

5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 20

5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 20

5.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................. 24

5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 24

5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 24

5.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 28

5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 28

5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 28

5.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 33

5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 33

5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 33

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 688 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ii April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 38

5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 38

5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 38

5.6 Energy ........................................................................................................... 42

5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 42

5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 42

5.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................... 44

5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 44

5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 44

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 50

5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 50

5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 50

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 53

5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 53

5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 53

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 58

5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 58

5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 59

5.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 63

5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 63

5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 63

5.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 65

5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 65

5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 65

5.13 Noise ............................................................................................................. 67

5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 67

5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 67

5.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................ 70

5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 70

5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 70

5.15 Public Services .............................................................................................. 72

5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 72

5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 72

5.16 Recreation ..................................................................................................... 75

5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 75

5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 75

5.17 Transportation ............................................................................................... 77

5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 77

5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 77

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 81

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 689 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 iii April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 81

5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 81

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................ 83

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 83

5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 83

5.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 88

5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR .................................... 88

5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Project ........................................................ 88 Section 6 References ............................................................................................................ 91

Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 Project Location ............................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 Project Site Map ......................................................................................... 13

Appendix A – California Emission Estimator Output File

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 690 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 iv April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AQMD Air Quality Ma nagement District
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO Carbon monoxide
CUP Conditional Use Permit
California Register of CRHR Historical Resources
California Rare Plant Rank CRPR
Desert Estates Transition DET
General Plan Update GPU
Fire Hazard Severity Zone FHSZ
Greenhouse Gas GHG
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Habitat Conservation Plans HCP
Imperial Irrigation District IID
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MS4
Natural Community Conservation Plans NCCP
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES
National Register NRHP of Historic Places
PEIR Program Environm ental Impact Report
PRD Planning Review Discretionary
PRC Public Resources Code
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG Southern California As sociation of Governments
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Qual ity Management District
SCH State Clearing House
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSC Species of Special Concern
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
ZNE zero net energy

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 691 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 1 November 2025
Exemption Checklist
Section 1 Introduction
This document is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 Checklist to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015081021) for the C ity of Indio General Plan 2040 Upda te (GPU) which was certified on January 5, 2022. The GPU was approved at the sa me public hearing. The certified GPU PEIR analyzed the potential en vironmental impacts of th e proposed land use de signations and policies covering the Planning Area, which includes the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). This area encompasses approximately 39,074 acr es in central Riverside Count y in the Coachella Valley, between the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mount ains National Monument to the southwest and Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast.

A project is consistent with the GPU PEIR if th e development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the involved parcel in the General Plan for which the EIR prepared and complies with the associated standards a pplicable to that deve lopment density (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standard s can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio, and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.

This checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 39405 and Planning Review Discretionary (PRD) for the proposed Roadrunner Flats project (Project). Following the format of CEQA Gu idelines Appendix G, environmental topical issues addressed in the GPU PEIR are evaluated herein to determine if the Project would result in an increase or new potentially significant impacts (i.e., impact peculiar to the Project or Project site) not identified in th e GPU PEIR that could tr igger additional review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

1.1 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects that are “consis tent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional envi ronmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific si gnificant effects which are peculi ar to the project or its site” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) and PRC Section 21083.3(b)). The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards […] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c)).”

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 692 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 2 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

1.2 Indio General Plan Update
The City of Indio GPU was adopted, and the PE IR (SCH #2015081021) certified by the City of Indio on January 5, 2022. The document is a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 1993, and included devel opment and adoption of a Climate Action Plan.

The General Plan is a state-mandated document th at outlines goals, policies, and programs that provide the framework for future development in the City and its SOI. The 1993 General Plan has a horizon year of 2020. The General Plan update has a horizon year of 2040. The analysis contained in the PEIR focuses on both the General Plan update and the above-referenced CAP which are addressed together as the GPU.

The GPU PEIR evaluated the potential environmental effects from implementation of the General Plan, and development pursuant to the GPU is subject to mitigation measures identified in the GPU PEIR and the requirements of the City’s municipa l code. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the GPU PEIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of pe ople in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.

The Roadrunner Flats Project (Project) is a two-phased residential community located on a 10.07- acre vacant site at the northeast corner of Av enue 39 and Dreams Lane (to be constructed) generally north of Shadow Hills High School. The site is zoned Desert Estates Transition 3 (DET- 3). The DET-3 zone provides low-intensity residential housing choices within a semi-rural setting.

Appropriate housing types include single-family detached dwellings of various sizes, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Residential Care Facilities. This zone implements the Desert Estates Transition General Plan land use designation. The maximum permitted residential density within the Desert Estates designation is three dwelling units per acre (du/ac).

1.3 Project Overview
Roadrunner Flats is a proposed 10.07-acre two-phased residential community featuring up to 30 single-family residential lots and one lot re served for a club house/leasing building and one manager’s unit. The project would be constructed in two phases.. The remaining 30 single-family residential lots would have one single-family re sidence each paired with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), designed to serve low and moderate-income households at 30% to 70% of area median income. Each lot will include a four-bedroom ho me and a two or three-bedroom ADU, with two parking spaces. Phase 1 will be comprised of 16 si ngle-family residential lots and one lot for the clubhouse/leasing building (i.e., 17 total lots). The single-family lots will have one primary residence and one ADU totaling 32 units. A manager’s unit will be on the second floor of the clubhouse/leasing building. The total number of residential units constructed during Phase 1 will

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 693 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 3 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
be 33. Phase 2 will be comprised of 14 lots with 28 total units. A total of 30 single-family units, 30 ADU’s and one (1) manager’s unit (a total of 61 units) will be constructed.

The community will provide amenities such as a clubhouse, leasing office, fitness center, dog run, playground, BBQ area, and landscaped open space. Designed with sustainability in mind, all units will feature energy-efficient a ppliances, private patios, and dr ought-tolerant landscaping with water-efficient irrigation. The secured site will include gated access and fencing, with construction occurring in two phases built si multaneously to deliver the full project as one complete neighborhood.

As stated, the project proposes up to 30 single-family residences, each with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Under the zoning requirement of th ree dwelling units per acre, the site could accommodate up to 30 primary units on 10.07 acres. The ADU’s are exempt from density calculations; thus, the project is consistent with zoning density standards. Approval of the TTM and PRD are discretionary actions; thus, complia nce with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required.

Applicability of State Guidelines Section 15183 1.4
As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sectio n 15183(d), the additional environmental review exemption applies to projects which meet the following conditions:

1. The project is consistent with:
a. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan,
b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or c. A general plan of a local agency, and

2. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

Additionally, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e) limits the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:

1. Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and

2. The lead agency makes a finding at a public he aring as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 694 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 4 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
The GPU PEIR analyzed the impacts of buildout of the GPU. As discussed in this analysis, the project is consistent with the land uses identified for the site in the GPU. With approval of the TTM and PRD, the project is consistent with the assumptions and land use and growth projections of the GPU. As such, the GPU PEIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this project, identified applicable mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of the project, and the project implements the applicable mitigation measures. The project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 applies for th e project because the following findings can be made:

1. The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

The project site involves approva l of a TTM to create up to 30 individual single-family lots and one clubhouse/leasing building lot. With approval of the TTM, a single-family residence can be constructed on each lot. Each lot can accommodate one ADU. As stated, the site is zoned Desert Estates Transition 3 (DET-3). The DET-3 zone provides low-intensity residential housing choices within a semi-rural setting. Appr opriate housing types include single-family detached dwellings of various sizes, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Residential Care Facilities. This zone impleme nts the Desert Estates Genera l Plan land use designation. The maximum permitted residential density within the Desert Estates designation is three dwelling units per acre (du/ac).

2. There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and which the GPU PEIR failed to analyze as significant effects.

As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU PEIR. The GPU PEIR identified that the GPU would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to agriculture re sources, air quality, cultural resources, mineral resources, noise, and transpor tation and traffic. The GPU PEIR also identified four environmental impact areas for which mitigation measures were required to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level: (1) air quality; (2) cultural resources; (3) noise, and (4) traffic/transportation.

3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/ or cumulative impacts which the GPU PEIR failed to evaluate.

The project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU PEIR with approval of a TTM and would comprise a small part of the growth that was forecast for build-out of the City. The pr oject would require the extension of a new

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 695 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 5 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
electrical distribution line from the Avenue 40 substation located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the site. The distribution line would be installed underground or above ground, subject to the Public Works Director’s discreti on, within existing Imperial Irrigation District (IID) right-of-way from Burr Street, south to Ave nue 40, west to Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 39 and west to the project site. The GPU PEIR considered the incremental impacts of the project and related utility and infrastructur e improvements. As explained further in the Exemption Checklist below, no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts have been identified which were not previously evaluated.

4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

As explained in the Exemption Checklist below and stated above, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

5. The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU PEIR.

As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, the project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU PEIR.

1.5 Content and Organization of This Exemption Checklist This Exemption Checklist relies on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the GPU PEIR, which addresses environmental issues section by section. The completed checklist is included in Section

5.0, Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic has the following subheadings:
 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU PEIR
 Impacts Associated with the project (including environmental checklist)  Conclusion
 GPU Goals and Policies
 Adopted GPU PEIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project

1.6 GPU PEIR
This Exemption Checklist incorporates the GPU PEIR (and its constituent parts) by reference. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at:
 City of Indio, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Indio, CA 92201
 https://www.indio.org/departments/community-development-department/general-plan- 2040/environmental-impact-report

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 696 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 6 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
The scope of analysis for the PEIR was determined by the City of Indio as a result of the scoping and public outreach process and responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study.

The NOP and Initial Study were distributed for a 30-day public review period which occurred from August 12, 2015, to September 11, 2015. The City of Indio held a scoping meeting in conjunction with the NOP to present the project and solicit feedback from the public and agency representatives. The scoping meeting was held Thursday August 20th, 2016. Based on the results of the scoping process, the GPU PEIR evaluate d 16 environmental topics. The PEIR made the following findings:

Less Than Significant Impacts Without Mitigation
 Aesthetics
 Cultural Resources (Tribal Cultural Resources)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures  Biological Resources
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
 Agriculture
 Air Quality
 Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Transportation/Traffic

As demonstrated herein, the proposed project would have no significant adverse impacts or require mitigation measures in addition to those included in the GPU PEIR to address project-specific impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 697 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 7 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Section 2 Environmental Setting
The GPU PEIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environm ent that would be caused by bu ildout of the GPU, within the Policy Plan, and impacts from the resultant populat ion and employment grow th in the City of Indio. The GPU PEIR evaluated a buildout of 38,144 dwelling units, 119,951 people, and 28,085 jobs. Growth associated with the GPU is not lin ked to a timeline. However, buildout of the GPU was forecast for the year 2040. For the residential sector, the GPU PEIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with an increase of 12,171 housing units and 32,068 people.

2.1 Project Location

The project site is vacant and undeveloped and lo cated at the northeast corner of Avenue 39 and Dreams Lane (to be constructed), west of Jefferson Street and generally north of Shadow Hills High School and Desert Ridge Academy and east of an existing improved stormwater channel (APN 691- 060-005). (refer Location, an 1, Regional Figure to Site). is site The project d Figure 2, Project designated Desert Estates in the GPU.

2.2 Existing Land Use
As stated, the site is vacant. Vegetation on the site is common desert sage brush. Ornamental palm species are located along the northern boundary on the adjacent residential parcel to the north.

Existing General Plan and Zoning Designation 2.3
The project site is within the General Plan designation Desert Estates Transition (DET). The DET designation provides a transition between the lowest intensity rural residential areas of the city and the more formal Suburban Neighbor hoods. The area surrounding the pr oject site is comprised of low-density residential to the east and north, Sh adow Hills High School and the Desert Ridge Academy are located across Avenue 39 to the south and an improved stormwater channel and low- density single-family residential is located west of the site. Avenue 39 is a paved and maintained city street. Half-width street improvements refe rred to as “Dreams Lane” would be constructed within an existing unpaved righ t of way running north/south al ong the western site boundary as part of Phase I improvements. roads. Primary access would be provided from Avenue 39. Parcels abutting the project site to the north, east and west are designated DET. The parcels to the south are designated Public/Institutional and those to the southwest are designated Suburban Neighborhood High.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 698 of 825 Figure 1— Regional Map - Project Site

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 699 of 825 Figure 2— Vicinity Map - Project Site

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 700 of 825 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 10 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

2.4 Land Use Designation
The project site is locat ed within the Desert Estates Transi tion neighborhood. As defined in the GPU, the DET designation provides a transition between the lowest intensity rural atmosphere of the Desert Estates and the more formal S uburban Neighborhoods. Allo wed primary uses are single-family residential, agriculture, parks and recreation. Secondary uses include hospitality and recreational. The allowed density is three dwelling units/ acre maximum. Streetscapes may be rural (i.e., curbless and gutterless shoulders) or simple, with rolled curbs and sidewalks and trails that facilitate internal connectivity. Street alignm ents may follow a grid or modified grid street network, or the layout may be relatively informal or curvilinear, with adjacent open spaces. The vehicular design speed is 25 mph. Streets are inte rnally oriented are in terconnected to create a comfortable neighborhood feel. Block sizes are typically large, up to 2,000 feet in perimeter. Some block edges may be defined by tr ails or multiuse paths. Blocks may include sidewalks and pathways to connect residents to parks, open space, and community amenities. Open space is provided through the preservation and integration of natural features a nd open space into the neighborhood design, and/or internally oriented and provided neighborhood parks. Structures may be clustered together to leave natural areas undi sturbed. Variety in lot size and product type is encouraged, as is density averaging. Buildings are set back significantly from the natural street edge to provide large front yards with porches or terraces. Back yards are large enough for private pools and other private open space for each household. Buildings are generally limited to one and two stories in height.

General Plan Update 2.5
A General Plan Update is a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, which was adopted in 1993, and includes development of a Climate Action Plan. The General Plan is a state-mandated document that outlines future provide the framework for that goals, policies, and programs development in the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The 1993 General Plan had a horizon year of 2020. The General Plan update has a hori zon year of 2040. The anal ysis contained in the PEIR focuses on both the General Plan update and the CAP, addressed together as the GPU. The GPU addresses land use, all modes of transpor tation, housing, safety, cons ervation, open space, noise, public health, sustainability, and economic development. The CA P is a blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with GPU buildout and meeting mandated GHG reduction targets. The CAP addr esses climate change at the local level by focusing on the major sources of GHG emissions in the City; establishing a detailed long-term strategy to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets; and providing a framework for comp liance with federal, state, and local regulations. Ultimately, the CAP iden tifies reasonable and effective GHG reduction measures and informs mitigation strategies for the PEIR. The GPU PEIR examined the potential environmental impacts of the GP U and various actions by the C ity and others to adopt and

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 701 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 11 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
implement the GPU, including, but not limited to adoption of any ordinance, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the GPU.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 702 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 12 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Section 3 Project Description

3.1 Project Description.

Roadrunner Flats is a proposed 10.07-acre two-phased residentia l community featuring single- family homes constructed in two phases located on a vacant site northwest of the intersection of Avenue 39 and Jefferson Street in the City of Indio, California (APN 691-060-005). Each of the 30 single-family residences woul d be paired with an ADU and are designed to serve low and moderate-income households at 30% to 70% of area median income (AM I) provided tax credit financing is obtained. Each lot will include a four-bedroom home and a two or three-bedroom ADU, with two parking spaces. The community will provide amenities such as a clubhouse, leasing office, indoor and outdoor fitness center; a dog run, playground, BBQ area, and landscaped open space. A manager’s unit will be constructed on the second floor of the clubhouse/leasing office building. A total of 61 units would be provided at buildout. Designed with sustainability in mind, all units will feature ener gy-efficient appliances, privat e patios, and drought-tolerant landscaping with water-efficient irrigation. The secured site will include gated access and fencing.

The Project would include construction of Dream s Lane during Phase I to provide secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) to/from Avenue 39 along the west side of site. Dreams Lane would be a two-lane paved street designed consis tent with City of I ndio standards and would require a 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication and construction of a 20-foot wide street, six-foot wide sidewalk and 4-foot wide planting strip. Primary access would be via a new two-lane 48- foot wide driveway to/from Avenue 39. Avenue 39 improvements would require a 40-foot right- of-way dedication, 10-foot public utility easement, a 32 -foot-wide street, five-foot bicycle lane, three-foot buffer, six-foot side walk, two feet of additional pl anting space and a 10-foot public utility easement. Both streets will require new street lights every 300 feet.

The project would require the extension of a ne w electrical distribution line from the Avenue 40 substation located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the site . The distribution line would be installed underground or above ground, subject to the Public Works Director’s discretion, within existing IID right-of-way from Burr Street, south to Avenue 40, west to Jefferson Street, north of Avenue 39 and west to the project site. The site plan is shown in Figure 3.

Construction of Phase I would begin in early 2027 and be completed in mid-2028. Phase II would be constructed after Phase I. The timing is unknown; however, for the purpose of this discussion, it is assumed that both phases would be constructed as one project. Approval of the TTM and PRD is a discretionary action; thus, compliance with CEQA is required.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 703 of 825 Figure 3—Site Plan

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 704 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 14 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

3.2 Discretionary Approvals
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 through 15053, the City of Indio is the designated Lead Agency for the project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are state agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project. There are no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies, or any other public agencies, whose approval is required for approving this project.

The following discretionary action is anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the project:
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map 39405
• Approval of Planning Review Discretionary

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 705 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 15 November 2025
Exemption Checklist
Section 4 Environmental Checklist

4.1 Background

1. Project title: Roadrunner Flats

2. Lead agency name and address:

City of Indio
Community Development, Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive
Indio, California 92201

3. Contact person name and phone
number:

Gustavo Gomez, Principal Planner
(760) 391-4086
[email protected]

4. Project location: City of Indio
5 Project sponsor’s name and address: Roadrunner Flats, LP c/o Tung Tran
13681 Newport Avenue, #8230
Tustin, CA 92780

6. General plan designation: Desert Estates Transition

7. Zoning: Desert Estates Transition - 3

8. Description of project: Approval of TTM 39405 and Planning Review Discretionary to allow construction of up to 30 single- family residences each with Accessory Dwelling
Units and one manager’s unit on an existing vacant

10.07-acre parcel
(APN 691-060-005).

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Vacant, low-density single -family residential and public/institutional uses.

10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:

Not applicable.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 706 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 16 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA pr ocess and equates signifi cant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with signi ficant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource.

In addition, AB 52 require s that lead agencies, upon request of a Califo rnia Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum, such as this GPU Ex emption Checklist (State CEQA Guidelines Section15183). As such, AB 52 consultation is not required for this project.

4.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The subject areas checked below were determined to be a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR, a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR, a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR, or a more severe impact due to subs tantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐and Agriculture
Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐and Hazards
Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology and
Water Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐Cultural Tribal
Resources
☐ Utilities and
Service Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings
of Significance

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 707 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 17 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

4.3 Determination (to Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

_________________________
Date Signature

☒ I find that the project WOULD NOT result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potential ly significant offsite im pact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required, and a Notice of Dete rmination (Section 15094) will be filed in dicating that the project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. ☐ I find that the project would re sult in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to an alyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this project is NOT ELIGIBLE fo r an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 708 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 18 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

4.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This GPU PEIR Exemption Checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the project. Following the form at of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the Project would result in a peculiar impact triggering additional review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.  Items checked “Peculiar Impact that is not Substantially Mitigated” indicates that the Project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the Project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the Project, or the Project site and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied developmen t policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1)(f))
 Items checked “Impact not Analyzed as Significant Effect in GPU PEIR” indicates that the Project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the GPU PEIR. Such a Project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied deve lopment policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2),(c),(f))
 Items checked “Potentially Significant Offsite or Cumulative Impact Not Discussed in GPU PEIR” indicates the Project could resu lt in cumulative a significant offsite or impact that was not discussed in the GPU PEIR. Such an offsite or cumulative Project impact is not significant if it can be su bstantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3),(c),(f))
 Items checked “Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information” indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that the Project impact is more severe than discussed in the GPU PEIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitiga ted by the impos ition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4)(c)(f)).
 Items checked “No New Impact” indicates that potential impacts from the Project have been adequately analyzed in the GPU PEIR.

A project does not qualify for a Section 15183 Exemption if it is determined that it would result in one or more of the following: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the GPU PEIR, 2) a significant impact was not analyzed as significant in the GPU PEIR, 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GPU PEIR, or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the GPU PEIR was certified. However, if a project having any of the foregoing impacts can be substantially mitigated through the imposition of uniformly applied development pol icies or standards.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 709 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 19 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Uniformly applied development policies or standards that are applicable to the project are included within this analysis.

A summary of the City’s analysis of each potential environmental effect related to the project is provided in the checklist below for each subject area.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 710 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 20 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Section 5 Environmental Analysis

5.1 Aesthetics

5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR

All future development would be required to comply with GPU policies and regulations that concern the protection of public views or scenic vistas, as well as minimizing development in areas where there is potential to obstruct views of the City’s scenic resources. The SOI contains scenic views with rolling hills and vast desert la ndscape, and since the GPU does not propose development in this area, views would be maintain ed. Further, all development in the City limits would be required to adhere to the GPU develo pment requirements, which includes limits on development intensity/density and form and charact er for all land use types, which would ensure that views from key viewing areas (such as I-10) are maintained. As future projects are planned, they must adhere to applicab le policies (such as Policy LU- 4.7 protecting City views) and Municipal Code regulations (Chapter 159 regulati ng and minimizing off-site lighting); therefore, potential impacts to public views or scenic vist as associated with the GPU would be less than significant.

5.1.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 711 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 21 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.1.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. Scenic vist as consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. The GPU PEIR stated that all development in the City limits would be required to adhere to the GPU development requirements, which includes limits on development intensity/density and form and character for all land use types, which would ensure that views from key viewing areas are maintained.

The project would be consistent with existi ng GPU land use and zoning designations analyzed under the GPU PEIR. The project would approve a TTM and PRD which would result in the construction of up to 30 single-fa mily residences, associated ADUs and one manager’s unit. The project would change the site appearance; however, it would not result in more severe impacts than already addressed by the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.1.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. All future development would be required to comply with GPU

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 712 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 22 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
policies and regulations that concern the pres ervation of scenic resources and countryside environment, including the Municipal Code (Chapter 159.103). Adhere nce to specific GPU policies, such as Policies CE-4.2, CE-8.1, and CE -8.2 referenced above, would ensure that new developments preserve and take into consider ation significant resources (such as trees and historical resources) when proposed. In addition, Chapter 98 of the Municipal Code also protects ‘heritage trees’ and regulates the removal of public trees and shrubs. Regulations governing historical resources are al so discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. As future projects are planned, they must adhere to applicable GPU policies; therefore, potential impacts to scenic resources associated with the GPU would be less than significant.

The project site is in an urba nizing area and designated DET in th e GPU. The site is vacant. The project would not damage or obscu re any scenic resources or hist oric buildings within a state scenic highway. There are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.

The project would be consistent with existi ng GPU land use and zoning designations analyzed under the GPU PEIR, therefore, would not result in more severe impacts than already addressed by the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of that are are those and its surroundings? public views of the site (Public views experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.1.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impa ct. The GPU would facilitate de velopment that would alter the visual character of the Planning Area. Projected growth forecast, consistent with the GPU, has the potential to impact the overall vi sual character of the Planning Area through changes in land use intensities and designations. Implementation of applicable Land Use and Urban Design Element Policies of the GPU, would ensure that impacts to the visual character of the Planning Area are taken into consideration and reduced or minimi zed in conjunction with future development.

Although visual character would ch ange throughout the City with new development, the change would be consistent with existing surroundings, and would not be degraded. As future projects are planned, they must adhere to applicable policie s and regulations; therefor e, potential impacts to visual character associated with the GPU would be less than significant.

The project site is in an urba nized area and designated DET in the GPU. The project would not result in new residential development; however , the development would not obscure existing views. Further, the site would comply with City of Indio lands caping requirements, to in part, screen the residence from motorists and existing residents. No changes to the project analyzed under the GPU PEIR are proposed. No new impact would occur. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 713 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 23 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.1.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impa ct. The GPU would facilitate de velopment that would generate new sources of light or glare within the Planning Area. Future development consistent with the GPU would result in the development of currently vacant parcels and the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of existing land uses. The incr ease in urbanization in the Planning Area could result in new light and glare ge nerating sources that could affect day and nighttime views. All future development projects would be required to comply with GPU policies and regulations that concern light and glare, includ ing the City Municipal Code. Chapter 159.107 of the Municipal Code also regulates exterior illumination devices and requires shielding or partial shielding of all exterior lighting to minimize undesi rable light into the night sky. As future projects are planned, they must adhere to applicable policies and regulations; therefore, potential impacts as a result of light or glare associated with the GPU would be less than significant.

The Project would be a new sour ce of light; however, the desi gn would comply with the above referenced design standards and GPU policies in tended to minimize light and glare impacts. No changes to the project analyzed under the GPU PEIR are proposed. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Aesthetics, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

GPU PEIR Mitigation Measures
The GPU PEIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to aesthetics.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 714 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 24 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources

5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU would re sult in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. No forestry resources are located in the City of Indio or SOI.

Implementation of the GPU would allow the de velopment of urban land uses (residential, commercial, etc.) on parcels which are currently active or fallow agriculture. The GPU does not mandate that landowners terminate agricultural production. However, because there are no exclusive agricultural land use designations included as part of the GPU, development facilitated by the GPU could eventually conve rt Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses. In addition, although there are 30 acres of designated lands under Williamson Act Contract in the City, the GPU does not identify land use types to support agricultural production.

Extensive agricultural operations in the City are generally surrounded by existing or planned urban land uses. There are no viable agricultural lands n ear the periphery of the City that would be available to provide agricultu ral conservation easements thr ough a conventional easement purchase mitigation program. While GPU policies support small scale agricultural uses in residential areas, there are no policies or mitigation measures available to mitigate the irreplaceable loss of Prime, Unique, and Locally Importan t Farmland. There are no mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts. Due to th e direct conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural land, this impact was defined as significant and unavoidable in the GPU.

Impacts Summary of Impact 5.2.2 s Identified in the GPU PEIR Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 715 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 25 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of a. Would the project convert Prime 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? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.2.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As discussed above, there are no mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts. Due to the direct conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

The project site is designated DET in the GPU. Agriculture is an allowed use; however, the site is not used for agricultural purposes nor is it desi gnated as prime or unique farmland in the GPU (Figure 4.2-3). No changes to the land uses analyzed under the GPU PEIR pertaining to farmland is proposed. There are no project-specific significan t impacts which are peculiar to the project or its site. No changes to the land uses analyzed under the GPU PEIR pertaining to farmland is proposed. No new impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 716 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 26 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. The GPU does not designate any lands for agricultural use; however, development facilitated by the GPU could ultimately eliminate all commercial agricultural activity, including on land under Williamson Act contracts. As stated above, due to the direct conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land, this impact is significant and unavoidable. There are 30 acres of designated lands under Williamson Act contract in the City. The proposed Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no new impacts would occur. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoni ng for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No New Impact. This topic was not addressed in the GPU PEIR. The Project site is not used for or zoned for timber production. Therefore, no conflict with the existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land would occur. No new impacts would occur.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. Refer response to above Section 5.2.2(c). e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact.

The project site is designated Desert Estate Transition in the GPU. It is not zoned for, nor designated for forest use or timber prod uction. No changes to the land uses analyzed in the GPU PEIR related to farmland or forest land are proposed. No new impacts would occur.

Conclusion
With respect to the issue area of Agricultural/F orestry Resources, the fo llowing findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project-specific impacts would be less than significant.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 717 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 27 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
GPU PEIR Mitigation Measures
The GPU PEIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry resources.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 718 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 28 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.3 Air Quality

5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR

The PEIR states the GPU would facilitate development that could conflict with implementation of air quality plans, and future development consis tent with the GPU may result in air pollutant emissions that are not accounted for in the adopted 2016 AQMP. As discussed in FEIR Section

4.3.3(b), Consistency with Regional Air Quality Plans , if a project would result in greater air emissions than would a project that is consiste nt with adopted land use designations, the project may potentially conflict with the AQMP air quality forecast used in the development of the AQMP.

CEQA requires that general plan s be evaluated for consistency with the applicable AQMP.

Population growth associated with adoption of the GPU (119,951) is approximately 2.8 percent lower than the population proj ections developed by SCAG (123,300) Thus, the GPU would generate less growth in population than envisioned in the 2016 AQMP and SCAG projections. In addition, household growth (38,144) and employm ent growth (25,085) associated with the proposed GPU would be within the 2016 AQMP and 2016 SCAG projections.

The GPU would result in significant air quality pollutant impacts were impacts. Criteria air compared to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD) significance thresholds. Construction activities related to building out of the GPU would result in air pollutant levels that exceed South Co ast AQMD significance thresholds. In addition, development allowed under the GPU would exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional operational significance thresholds and would have the potential to affect the emissions forecasts in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The GPU would cumu latively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. The GPU would also generate toxic air contaminants (TAC) that would contribute to elevated levels in the air basins and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Odor impacts were identified as less than significant. Carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots were found to be less than significant. Although mitigation measures in the GPU PEIR would reduce air quality impacts of the GPU to the extent feasible, air quality impacts were identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the GPU.

5.3.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the app licable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the Project:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 719 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 29 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. As shown in Table 4.3-5 of the PEIR, the GPU would result in emissions of all criteria pollutants due to contin ued growth facilitated by the GPU. However, since the City’s growth projections (both population and housing) are within regional (SCAG) forecasts, and are accounted for in the AQMP air quality forecast, the GPU would not result in significant air quality impacts relating to conformance with applicable air quality plans. Since growth facilitated by the GPU would not exceed and are within anticipated regional growth forecasts, the GPU would be consistent with applicable air quality plans in the region, and this impact would be less than significant.

The project site is designated DET under the GPU and zoned DET- 3. With approval of the TTM and PRD, the proposed project would allow construction of up to 30 single-family residences, 30 ADUs and one manager’s unit which would accommodate a portion of the anticipated population growth projections. However, no changes to the land uses analyzed in the GPU PEIR are proposed as the project is allowed per the DET-3 zoning with approval of the TTM and PRD. Thus, land use proposed for the project is assume d to have been included in th e development projections of the GPU PEIR; and thus, consistent with th e 2016 and 2022 South Coast AQMD Air Quality

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 720 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 30 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Management Plans. Thus, the project would not c onflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 or 2022 AQMPs. No new impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project. b. Would the project 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)?
No New Impact.

The air pollutant emissions that would result from future development under the GPU were quantified following th e methodology discussed in Se ction 4.3.3(b). Table 4.3-6 with the PEIR lists the size of common project types below which construction-related or operational related air emissions would not be expected to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Projects that are smaller than the identified project sizes in Table 4.3-6 also would not be expected to result in air emissions that exceed SC AQMD significance thresholds. Proj ects that are larger than the identified project sizes in Table 4.3-6 may result in construction-related or operational-related air emissions that exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds and would require mitigation. The project would exceed the number of units expected to have less than significant air emissions.

Table 1 shows the construction and operating emissions associated with the proposed Project. As shown, the emissions would not exceed the SC AQMD thresholds. Table 2 shows operating emissions. As shown, project operations would not exceed the daily significance thresholds.

Table 1
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NO x CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5
Emissions – 2027 2.4 3.0 25.6 28.9 0.06 4.8
Emissions - 2028 0.04 0.07 0.02 12.6 10.0 16.2
SCAQMD Regional
Thresholds
75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded 2027 No No No No No No
Threshold Exceeded 2028 No No No No No No

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 721 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 31 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
The proposed project would not create new impacts or increase the severity of impact identified in the GPU PEIR.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.3-6). As stated in the GPU PEIR, the GPU would accommodate future deve lopment that could expose existing sensitive receptors and result in the placement of new sensitive receptors in locations that would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Stationary sources of criteria pollutants may be associated with a large variety of activities and land uses which may be located in proximity to sensitive receptors. As discussed in Section 4.3.3(b), Stationary Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants, future development consistent w ith the GPU would not be anticipate d to expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations if proposed development is consistent with CARB recommended buffers
The project site is in developing area of the City. Existing development is comprised of rural residential, institutional and commercial uses. Construction of up to 62 residences on a site zoned for the proposed density would not expose sensitive receptor s to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact was considered to be significant and unavoidable in the PEIR. No new impact would occur with approval of the project.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.3-7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. Some commer cial and industrial uses developed pursuant to the GPU may generate odors that could affect the public. Examples of commercial uses that have the potential to cause odor impacts include fast food restaurants, photographic studios, and laundry facilities. Industrial us es such as industrial warehouses, small scale agricu ltural uses, and wastewater treatment plants also have th e potential to generate objectionable odors.

Table 2
Estimated Maximum Daily Operating Emissions

Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NO X CO SO X PM 10 PM 2.5
Operational Emissions 5.0 1.9 16.3 0.03 2.4 0.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 722 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 32 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Implementation of applicable policies in the Land Use and Urban Design Element and Health and Equity Element of the GPU would ensure odor imp acts are less than significant. Approval of the TTM and PRD would result in the construction of up to 30 new single-family residences, 30 ADU’s and one manager’s unit. Co nstruction activities would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Residential uses do not generate odors. No new impact would occur
Conclusion
With regard to the issue area of Air Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project There are no mitigation measures that are applicable to the project.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 723 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 33 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.4 Biological Resources

5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR states that there are a total of 18 vegetation community/land cover types within the planning area. Areas of native vegetation predominantly occur in the northwest and northeast portions of the City to the north of I-10, and wi thin the SOI which includes Conservation Areas identified in the Coachella Valley Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan. A total of 12 sensitive vegetation communities have been identified. A total of 17 sensitive wildlife species are known to historically occur in the vicinity of the Planning Area. There is pot ential for jurisdictional waters and wetlands to occur in the Planning Area. The Whitewater River is mapped in the central portion of the Planning Area and portions of the Coach ella Canal are mapped throughout the Planning Area. Additionally, the northern an d eastern portions of the Pla nning Area contain a variety of mapped drainages, including drainages associated with Berdoo Canyon, Little Fargo Canyon, and Fargo Canyon.

Habitat linkages and wildlife corridors are defined as areas that connect su itable wildlife habitat in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance.

Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetati on cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Habitat linkages a nd wildlife corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allo w the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations.

Undeveloped land occurs primarily in the SOI, northeast of the City limits. The SOI contains large expanses of sensitive vegetation communities and naturalized land cover types that provide habitat for wildlife. Additionally, portions of Berdoo Canyon, West Berdoo Canyon, Little Fargo Canyon, Fargo Canyon, Pushawalla Canyon, and Indio Canyon are located with in or directly adjacent to the SOI. These areas provide connectivity to larger expanses of open space and constitute suitable corridors for wildlife travel.

Additionally, the CVMSHCP identifies the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area, and East Indio Hills Conser vation Area as containing regionally significant corridors and linkages in the SOI (Figure 4.4-3). The Thousand Palms Conservation Area is identified as providing connectivity to bobcats, kit foxes, and other species occurring in the Indio Hills to Joshua Tree National Park.

With mitigation, biological resource impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

5.4.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 724 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 34 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game
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 Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 725 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 35 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
habitat a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through modifications, on any species identified as a candi date, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the California Department Fish and of Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.4-4) and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The GPU PEIR indicated that buildout of the GPU may result in actions that could adversely affect special-status species directly and indirectly. Direct impacts to special-status vegetation communities could result from the conversion of habitat either temporarily, as a result of grad ing, excavation, and construction ac tivities, or permanently from the ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project or plan. Indirect impacts could result from generation of fugitive dust, increased sediment loads in runoff from construction activities or the adverse effect of invasive plant species. However, implementation of the GPU policies as well as compliance with regulatory requi rements would avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to special-status species by requiring the protection and preservation of such resources.

The proposed project site is loca ted in the northwest portion of the City. The site is mapped as Stabilized Desert Sand Fields. This consists of desert sand accumulations that are stabilized and/or partially stabilized by evergreen and/or deciduous shrubs, annuals, and perennial grasses. Shrub species include creosote bus h, four-wing saltbush, Californi a croton, and indigo bush. This vegetation community lacks dune formations. This vegetation community is listed as sensitive within the CVMSHCP. A total of 17 sensitive wild life species are known to historically occur in the vicinity of the Planning Area. None are known to occur on the project site.

Direct impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species could result from grubbing, mass grading, clearing, and other construction ac tivities. Additionally, direct imp acts to nesting or migratory birds, including raptors (as protected under the MBTA), coul d result from the removal of vegetation during the bird breed ing season (January 15–Septembe r 15). Indirect impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species could also result from excess noise, lighting, or runoff generated during project construction or operation in areas located adjacent to occupied habitat.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 726 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 36 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Adherence to GPU policies and required adheren ce to state, regional, and federal regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. No new impacts not disclosed in the GPU PEIR would occur.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. This topic was evaluate d in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.4.5). Mapped sensitive communities are shown in Figure 4.4-1 of the GPU PEIR. No riparian features are mapped on the Project site. While approval of the TTM and PRD would allow development of up to 61 units, no new impact would occur.
or federally protected wetlands c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state (including, but not limited to, ma rsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.4.6) as described above. No wetlands occur on the Project site. No project-specific impacts would occur; thus, there would be no peculiar impacts that were not previously ad dressed in the GPU EIR. No new impact would occur.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.4.7. The CVMSHCP identifies two Conservation Areas as containi ng regionally significant corridors and linkages within City Limits: the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, and the East Indio Hills Conservation Area. These areas are designated as CVMSHCP Conservation Land in the GPU. Both are north of the Project site and would not be affected by the proposed Projec t. Project approval would not result in peculiar impacts that were not previ ously addressed in the GPU EIR. No new impact would occur.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PE IR (Impact 4.4.8) and determined to be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. There are three designated heritage trees in the downtown portion of the Planning Area.

Development facilitated by the GPU would not have the potential to disturb, remove, or damage heritage trees, as specific ordinances in the City Municipal Code, as well as GPU Policy CE-4.3, protect heritage trees. The proposed Project would not require the removal of Heritage Trees or

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 727 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 37 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
conflict with tree preservation policy or ordinances. Therefore, project-specific impacts would be no greater than those previously addressed in the GPU EIR. No new impact would occur. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PE IR (Impact 4.4.9) and determined to be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and mitigation. The majority of the Conservation Areas identified in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan are located within the SOI. No development is proposed in the SOI as part of the GPU. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site.

No new impact would occur with approval of the proposed project.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Biological Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. Feasible mitigation measures contained w ithin the GPU PEIR, as well as project- specific measures, will apply to the project.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project Future development under the GPU would be requi red to be consistent with the CVMSHCP and related rules and regulations applicable to bi ological resources. Impact s would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 728 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 38 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.5 Cultural Resources

5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
Historic Resources
This issue was addressed in Section 4.5.4 of the GPU PEIR which stated that land disturbance, demolitions and/or development associated with implementation of the GPU could result in direct impacts to historic resources through ground disturbance, physi cal demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a significant historic buildings or other structures, objects of community value and importance, or individua l sites. Impacts to historic structures could occur through demolition or modification of an existing building determined to be of historical significance or its environs. Specifically, Policies CE plan future guide and 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 ensure site review development such that ,when possible, significant prehistoric or historic resources are avoided and, if avoidance is not possible, th at measures to mitigate significant impacts are implemented in accordance with CEQA.

Archeological Resources

This issue was address in Section 4.5.5 of the GPU PEIR which stated that land disturbance and/or development associated with implementation of the GPU could result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of known or as yet unidentified sacred uses/tribal cultural resources should construction activities such as grading and excavation occur in sites of tribal significance, including sacred lands, archaeological sites, or sites containing human remains. Implementation of Conservation Element policies CE 8.4 and CE 8.6 would ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources are taken into consideration and reduced or minimized in conjunction with future development.

5.5.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 729 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 39 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.5.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact after implementation of applicable GPU policies and mitigation.

According to the listing included in the GPU PEIR, the project site is not identified as a historical resource in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the California Historical Landmark. Further, there are no structures or other features located on-site that would be adversely affected by the project. No impact peculiar to the project would occur, as the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Implementation of Policies CE 8.1 and CE 8.2 would ensure that impacts to historic resources are minimized.

All future development would be required to comply with applicab le federal and state laws and regulations concerning the preservation of prehistoric or historic resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act, and California Public Resources Code. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits the removal, destruction, or defacement of historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, and archaeological sites on public lands without express permission by the jurisdiction. The National Hi storic Preservation Act also requires that historic resources eligible for NRHP are managed and maintained in a way th at considers the preservation of their historic, archeological, architectural, and cultural values . Adherence to GPU policie s and other state laws and regulations would reduce poten tial impacts to historic resour ces associated with growth accommodated by the GPU to the extent feasible. No new impacts would occur. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 730 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 40 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.5.5) and was determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Future development consistent with the GPU could result in direct impacts to archaeological resources in the Planning Ar ea, since the Planning Area has High, Moderate-High, and Moderate sensitivity present throughout (See Figure 4.5-1). It is important to note that these identified sensitive areas were not mapped for the entire City, as shown in Figure 4.5-1. The sensitivity of the Project site is not labeled in Figure 4.5-1 of the GPU PEIR.

Implementation of Policies CE 8.1 and CE 8.4 w ould help reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Implementation of GPU PEIR Mitigation Measure CR-3 would require a site-specific cultural resources survey in areas labeled Moderate, Modera te-High and High. Thus, no new cultural resource impact would occur.
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No New Impact. This topic was determined to be less than significant; and thus, not evaluated in the GPU PEIR. If human remains are discovered with a project site, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires disturba nce of the site must stop until the coroner has investigated and made recommendations for the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would reduce potent ial impacts to less than significant. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of cultural/paleontological resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. Feasible mitigation measures contained w ithin the GPU PEIR (Mitigation Measures CR- 3) will be applied to the Pr oject. These mitigation measur es, detailed below, provide protection for human remains and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 731 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 41 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The following mitigation measures from the GPU PEIR are applicable to the project:

MM-CR-3: In areas of moderate, moderate-high, and high sensitivity for cultural resources, as well as areas not mapped for sensitivity, the City sh all either require future project applicants to conduct an archaeological field survey or conduct construction mo nitoring by a qualified professional if ground disturbance is proposed. If surveys are conducted, the surveys shall be sent to the City of Indio for review and approval prior to issuance of project-specific development permits.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 732 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 42 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.6 Energy

5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The topic of Energy was not evaluated in the GPU PEIR. A summary of potential impacts related to energy use is provided below.

Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
potentially a) Result significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project result in potentially si gnificant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of ener gy resources, during project construction or operation?
No New Impact. Construction activities would primarily consume nonrenewable energy resources such as oil, diesel, and gasoline through operation of construction equipment, material deliveries, and debris hauling. However, construction-rela ted energy consumption would be temporary, and no permanent new source of energy demand w ould result from construction activities.

Development of the project woul d follow typical construction pract ices and would be subject to existing regulatory requirements related to energy use. Further, operation of the residences would require fuel and electricity. However, these would not be considered unusual activities that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No new impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 733 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 43 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. The Project would construct up to 30 single-family residences, 30 ADUs and one manager’s unit. The Project would be required to comply with California Energy Code Title 24 requirements. Further, the Proj ect would implement wa ter conservation strategies focused on achieving the goals set forth by Senate Bill X7 7 (2010) which mandates a statewide 20% per capita reduction in wa ter consumption by 2020 . The project would also be required to comply with CALGreen 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to liv e and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce envi ronmental impact durin g and after constructi on. CALGreen contains requirements for stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. Impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Energy, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in a significant impact.

4. No mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not address energy. Thus, no significant energy impacts or mitigation measures were identified.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 734 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 44 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.7 Geology and Soils

5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
Seismic Hazards

As stated in the GPU PEIR, the GPU would facilitate future development that could result in impacts related to seismic hazards should construction occur in areas prone to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure. There is a low risk for landslides in the City, and since future development is not proposed in the SOI where hillsides are present, impacts from landslides would be less than significant. Future development may result in soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil, as it would involve vegetation removal, grading, and potentially earth excavation, which would expose so ils and increase the potential for soil er osion from wind or stormwater runoff. Erodibility susceptibility due to wind is shown in Figur e 4.6-5, and shows that natural hazards are present primarily in the northern portion of the northern and eastern portion of the SOI, where no development is currently proposed. The GPU would facilitate development that could result in impacts related to geologic instability should development occur 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 sp reading, liquefaction, subsidence, or collapse. Areas of instability in the Planning Area include eastern portions of the City, which are susceptible to liquefaction. Soil types with potential to result in shrinking and swelling are generally not locate d in the Planning Area, however, soils with clay are present in the eastern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, although not mapped at the Planning Area scale, individual sites may contain soils with expansive soil hazards.

All Geology/Soil impacts were determined to less than significant and no mitigation measures were recommended.

5.7.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 735 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 45 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (2013),
creating direct or indirect
substantial risks to life or
property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 736 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 46 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
f) Directly or in directly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒☐

a. Would the project directly or indirectly cau se potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
earthquake fault, known Rupture of a i. as delineated Alquist-Priolo the most recent on 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.

No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone as depicted in Figure 4.6-3 in the GPU PEIR. Therefore, the Project would not be impacted by rupture of a known fault or experience seismic related impacts greater than or different from what was addressed in the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur.

Strong seismic ground shaking? ii.

No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The Project site is located in a seismically active region, as is all of southern California. The Project site c ould be subject to seismically related strong ground shaking. As stated above, the project site is not located within a known fault zone but is within the a seismically active area. Compli ance with the require ments of the CBC and the City Code, as applicable to the project scope, would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.4) and was determined to be less than significant. As stated, the GPU would facilitate future development that could result in impacts related to seismic h azards should cons truction occur in areas prone to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong se ismic ground shaking, or seis mic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. As shown in Figure 4.6.4, the project is locat ed within an area of low to

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 737 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 47 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
moderate potential for liquefaction. The project is required to co mply with the CBC and the City Code, as applicable to the scope, to reduce haza rds from liquefaction to a less than significant.

Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to liquefaction.

Further, GPU Policies SE-4.1, SE 4.2, SE-4.3 are intended to reduce potential impacts related to site-specific seismic conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact . The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City. This area is flat; and thus, is not identifi ed as having a high land slide potential in the GPU PEIR. The project is required to comply with the CBC and the GPU Policies referenced above to reduce hazards from landslide to less than signifi cant. Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to landslide.
b. Would the project result in substant ial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated in the GPU PEIR, future development may result in soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil, as it would involve vegetation removal, grading, and potentially earth excavation, which would expose soils and increase the potenti al for soil erosion from wind or stormwater runoff. Erosion susceptibility due to wind is shown in Figure 4.6-5, The project site is located in an area of low wind erosion potenti al. Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to soil erosion.
c. Would the project 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?
No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.6) and was determined to have a less than significant imp act. As stated in the GPU PEIR, all future development would be required to comply with applicable state laws and local regulations pertaining to geologic instability, including the CBC, Chapter 155 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the requirements related to geologic instability, Chap ter 162 of the City’s Municipal Code outlining the grading and information requirements for development activities in the City of Indio.

Additionally, projects in areas with known geologic instability conditions would be required to prepare a site-specific geotechnical investigation and soils report (per GPU Policy SE-4.2) as well as adhere to the grading and other recommendations to minimize impacts associated with unstable soils. In addition, adherence to Policy SE-4.3 requires the preparation of a liquefaction assessment when projects are proposed in areas identified as potentially susceptible to liquefaction. This would ensure that potential site specif ic liquefaction hazards are identi fied and properly mitigated prior

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 738 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 48 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
to development. The proposed pr oject would be required to comp ly with above referenced GPU policies focused on reducing potential impacts associated with geologic instability. Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to unstable geologic units. d. Would the project 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? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.6.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact . As stated, soil types with poten tial to result in shrinking and swelling are generally not located in the Planning Area, however, soils with clay are present in the eastern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, although not mapped at the Planning Area scale, individual sites may contain soils with expansive soil hazards. E xpansive soils cause structural damage, cracked driveways and sidewalks, h eaving of roads and highway structures, and disruption of pipelines and other utilities. Future development may be proposed and/or located on areas with expansive soils and could result in impacts should construction occur on expansive soils if not properly researched and mitigated. Potentially effective mitigation may include removal and replacement of expansive soils , mixing and re-compaction of native soils, certain types of foundation and pad design that resi st deformation. The proposed project would be required to comply with above referenced GPU policies focused on reducing potential impacts associated with expansive soils. Future work would be subject to geotechnical engineering review and design requirements. Therefore, the project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to expansive soils. No new impact would occur.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. This topic was determined to have le ss than significant impacts and was not evaluated in the GPU PEIR. The proposed project would connect to existing sewer infrastructure.

Therefore, the project would not result in a more severe impact than analyzed in the GPU PEIR.

No new impact would occur.
f. Would the project directly or indirectly d estroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact. This issue was addressed in the GPU PE IR (Impact 4.5.7). The PEIR states that future development could result in direct impa cts to paleontological resources should grading occur in areas of high paleontological sensitiv ity, including undisturbed deposits of the Mecca Formation, Palm Spring Formation, Canebrake Conglomerate, Older Quaternary Lake Sediments, and Ocotillo Conglomerate. As shown in Figur e 4.5-3, the majority of the Planning Area is identified as having High Potential for paleontol ogical resources. Construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of paleontological resources. A mitigation measure has been developed requiring the conduction of a paleontological field survey or field monitoring in areas of high sensitivity as we ll as areas where no sensitivity

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 739 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 49 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
mapping has occurred (see Figure 4.5-3). The project has not be labeled an area of paleontological sensitivity; however, it is proximal to highly sensitive areas. Policy CE 8.1 and CE 8.4 which identifies measures to minimize impacts to cultural resources, would also pertain to paleontological resources. There is no project-specif ic significant effect which are peculiar to the project or its site. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Geology and Soils, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project No mitigation measures are identified in the GPU PEIR to address impacts to geology and soils

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 740 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 50 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
As stated in the GPU EIR (Impact 4.7.5), future development consistent with the GPU would result in communitywide emissions of 535,200 MT CO2E in 2020, which represents an emission level of approximately 5.0 MT CO2E per service popul ation and an approximate 6.0 MT CO2E per capita. As this is less than the significance threshold of 7.4 MT CO2E per service population, and less than the 10.6 MT CO2E reduction goal per cap ita established in SB 32, the GPU would be consistent with the City’s and State’s GHG reduction goals. Further, future development consistent with the GPU would result in communitywide emissions of 405,125 MT CO2E in 2030, which represents an emission level of approximately 3.3 MT CO2E per service population in 2030 and an approximate 3.9 MT CO2E per capita in 2030. This is less than the threshold of 4.2 MT CO2E per service population and the 5.9 MT CO2E per capita reduction goal established in SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan.

The GPU includes specific policies that s upport Scoping Plan measures by reducing GHG emissions from the transportation and energy sectors in addition to land development. policies that would reduce emissions from the transportation sector focus on encouraging additional sustainable land use practices, such as mixed-use centers and providing complete streets, as well as further developing Indio’s alternative transportation infrastructure incl uding pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, transit, ride sharing, and promotion of fuel efficient and alternat ive-fuel vehicles.

Policies that would reduce emissions for the en ergy sector includes im proving efficiency of existing buildings, promotion of green building, increasing local renewable energy generation, and conversion of natural gas to clean electricity. Therefore, GPU po licies are consis tent with the measures in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

5.8.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 741 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 51 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.7.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated, future development consistent with the GPU would result in communitywide emissions of 535,200 MT CO2E in 2020, which represents an emission level of approximately 5.0 MT CO2E per service population and an approximate 6.0 MT CO2E per capita. As this is less than the significance threshold of 7.4 MT CO2E per service population, and less than the 10.6 MT CO2E reduction goal pe r capita established in SB 32, the GPU would be consistent with the City’s and State’s GHG reduction goals. The project proposes a total of up to 30 single-family units, 30 ADUs and one manager’s unit which is consistent with the DET-3 zoning designation (i.e., three un its per acre) for the 10.07 gross ac re site. The unit count would be consistent with zoning and GHG emissions were estimated as pa rt of the GPU process. Thus, emissions associated with development of the site were included in the estimated total. As stated, GHG impacts were determined to be less than significant in the GPU PEIR. Impacts would remain less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.7.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The project would be developed consistent with GPU policies that focus on implementation of the Climate Action Plan and that are consistent with the measures in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regard to the area of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 742 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 52 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project No mitigation measures identified in the GPU PEIR are applicable to the Project.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 743 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 53 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR

The GPU would facilitate developm ent that would involve the a lteration, intensification and redistribution of land uses in the Planning Area, including the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. The GPU allows for residential uses, which could be developed near existing agricultural areas.

Development uses near agricultural could result in exposure to agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, noxious odors, etc., which may pose a health hazard.. Development on former in sites could result agricultural the future resi of exposure dents to potential soil contamination from past use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Depending upon how recent agricultural activities occurred, soils tests to measure levels of agri-chemicals may be warranted prior to site development.

The GPU would facilitate the development of commercial and industrial uses, which may manufacture, transport, store, use, and dispose of hazardous materi The tr als and waste. ansport of hazardous materials along the highways and local roads creates potential risks for spills or leaks from mobile sources. The alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses may also contribute to public exposure and environmental hazards during transport, of disposal use, or hazardous materials. In addition, industrial and commercial land uses which have the potent ial to manufacture, use, store, and/or transport hazardous materials could create risk of accidental some release of hazardous materials.

Future development or construction activities may pose hazards to the public or the environment by disturbance of existing contaminated soils, groundwater or hazardous building materials. Grading and excavation activities could disturb soils and cause contaminants below ground to become airborne.

The GPU PEIR determined that impacts related to health hazards; routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.

5.9.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 744 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 54 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident 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 or excessive
noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 745 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 55 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.8.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact with impleme ntation of existing regulatory requirements. The project involves approval of a TTM and PRD to allow construction of up to 30 single-family residences, 30 ADUs, one manager’ s unit and related on- and off- site improvements consistent with the DET-3 zoning designation. The types of hazardous materials used would be common cleaning supplies. The project would not create any new significant hazard related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No new impacts would occur. b. Would the project create a significant ha zard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.8.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact with impleme ntation of existing regulatory requirements. The types of hazardous materials used would be common cleaning supplies. The project would not create any new significant hazard related to the acci dental release of hazardous materials into the environment. No new impacts would occur.
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous Would the project emit hazardous c. emissions materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.8.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The projec t is located across Avenue 39 from Shadow Hills High School. However, approval of a TTM and PRD would allow construction of up to 30 single- family residences, 30 ADUs, one manager’s unit a nd related on- and off-site improvements. No hazardous emissions would be generated nor woul d hazardous materials be stored or handled within ¼ miles of a school. No new impacts would occur. d. Would the project 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?
No New Impact. This topic was addressed in the GPU PEIR as part of Impact 4.8.5 and was determined to have a less than significant impac t. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled as part of the GPU PEIR. A review of the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases does not include the proj ect site as hazardous ma terial sites (DTSC 2025, SWRCB 2025). No new impact would occur.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 746 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 56 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.8.7) and was determined to have a less than significant im pact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is immediately adjacent to the City and immediately south of and parallel to U.S. I-10. As a result, aircraft using the airport may fly over the Planning Area. The 5,00 0-foot runway is oriented in a northwest-southeast direction and approaches and takeoff pattern s affect the southern portion of the Planning Area. According to the Bermuda Dunes ALUCP, a portion of the City is in the Bermuda Dunes Safety Zones C (extended approach/departure zone), D (primary traffic patterns and runway buffer area), and E (other airport environs). The project site is with in Safety Zone E. Land use limitations within Safety Zone E are defined as hazards to flight which include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Airspace review is required for any structures 100 feet tall or higher. The proposed residences would not be considered a hazard to flight nor would the building height require an airspace review. No new impacts would occur.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.8.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. All future development 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 emerge ncy access or fail to comply with fire department standards.

Specific policies in the GPU, su ch as Policies SE-2.2 and SE-2.3, would ensure that 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 en sure that the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is maintained and updated to re flect up to date emergency response and disaster preparedness information, an d applicable evacuation pro cedures. Therefore, growth accommodated by the GPU would not conflict with an emergency response plan. The proposed project, including the access point and drive aisl e, would be designed to meet City of Indio standards. It would not impair or physically interfere with any roadways for an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new impact would occur. g. Would the project expose people or structures, ei ther directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GPU PEIR. The project site is not located within a wildfire hazard severity zone. (CalFire, 2025). No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the following findings can be made:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 747 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 57 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 748 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 58 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
As stated in the GPU EIR, development facili tated by the GPU would en tail grading and other earth-moving activities during construction. Exposed soils could be eroded and deposited into the surrounding water bodies, increasing the amount of sediment and turbidity in these water bodies.

Additionally, chemicals or fuels could accidentally spill and be released into receiving waters, which could adversely alter water chemistry. The following Infrastructure and Public Facilities Element policies of the GPU would ensure that water quality protection measures are implemented and that impacts to water quality are reduced or minimized in conjunction with future development: IE-1.3, IE-1.4, IE-1.5 and IE-1.6. In addition to GPU policies, all future development projects would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations concerning the protection of water quality, in cluding the federal Clean Water Act, and the Municipal Code. The federal Clean Water Act re quires a Section 401 water quality certification for all projects requiring a federal permit and a NPDES General Construction Permit for construction activities. The NPDES General C onstruction permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required 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 st ormwater management and discharge control, including proof of compliance with the NP DES permits prior to the issuance of grading, development, or occupancy permits. As future pr ojects are planned, they must adhere to GPU policies and regulations; therefore, potential imp acts to water quality associated with the GPU would be less than significant.

Development facilitated by the GPU would result in the intensification of land uses and the development of vacant land, which may increase the overall demand on groundwater supplies.

Development facilitated by the GPU would allow for grading and construction in previously undeveloped areas, which may alter drainage patterns and/or result in an increase in impervious surfaces, thereby potentially in creasing stormwater runoff. Incr eased stormwater runoff would have the potential to result in erosion or siltation, or exceed the capacity of the storm drain system and result in flood hazards on surrounding lands. Implementation of GPU Policy SE-6.3 requires site specific hydrology/drainage studies to avoid potential impacts associated with this issue.

Indio does not have the risk of dam failure because no true dams exist; however, levees and dikes are types of dams. Areas within 100-year flood hazard zones occur adjacent to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, which runs through the center of the Planning Area, and around the drainages in the northwestern portion of the Pla nning Area. The Coachella Canal does not have FEMA designated Flood Zones; however, a por tion of the canal runs through the 500-year floodplain. Additionally, although no development is currently proposed in the SOI, a majority of

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 749 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 59 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
the SOI is located in the 500-year flood hazar d areas. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were recommended.

5.10.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
offsite;
(iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 750 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 60 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.9.4) and determined to have a less than significant impact. As proposed, on-s ite storm flows would be conveyed through the storm drain collection system into the diversion structure, where low flow is filtered via filter insert and discharged into the infiltration trench. This trench consists of two (2) rows of 75’ long 72”- diameter perforated Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) for infiltration. High flow will bypass and flow into a detention/infiltration trench for detention and additional infiltration. Flow on the half street of Dreams Lane will drain al existing gutter on Avenue 39 The the that joins the gutter ong combined flow will convey eastward on Avenue 39 away from the site. This portion of flow is on public street and is addressed per the city’s Master Drainage Plan. However, the equivalent design treatment volume is still considered and added to that of the onsite tributary area. The on-site stormwater drainage system is intended to a void the degradation or surface water quality.

Additionally, the project is required to comply w ith the City’s grading program, as applicable.

Therefore, the project would not result in substantially greater surface or groundwater quality impacts. No new impacts would occur.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.9.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impa ct. As stated, developm ent would result in the intensification of land uses and the development of vacant land, which may increase the overall demand on

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 751 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 61 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
groundwater supplies. The proposed project woul d increase the impervious surface on the site; however, as stated, storm flows will be conveyed into infiltration trenches. Approval of the TTM and PRD would not increase impervious surfaces on the site. Groundwater recharge would not be affected. The proposed land use would not require the use of groundwater. No new impacts would occur.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existi ng drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.9.6) and determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated in the GPU PEIR, future development projects would be required to comply with applicable laws and re gulations that concern st ormwater 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 Munici pal Code provides regulations regarding stormwater runoff, including project desi gn features that reduce and direct stormwater runoff. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) would be prepared to control erosion during construction. The stormwater conveyance, collection and treatment system would minimize erosion during operation. This impact was determined to be less than significant in the GPU PEIR.

No new impacts would occur.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.9.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated above, the amount of surface runoff would increase with the project; however, the stormwater management system would avoid any off-site flooding.

The project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, no new impact would occur. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which w ould exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Refer to Section 5.10.2(a) and (ii)(c) (i). iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.9.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact with impleme ntation of existing regulatory requirements. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insura nce Rate Map identifies the project site as within Zone A (06071C8850H). Zone X with less than a 1% annual chance of flooding. The project

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 752 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 62 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
site is not a flood zone; thus, development would not impede flood flows. The project would not result in peculiar impacts that were not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur.
d. Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.9.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact with impleme ntation of existing regulatory requirements. The site is located in Flood Zone X as stated above. The site is inla nd and not subject to tsunamis.

Further, there are no large open bodi es of water in the area that c ould result in a seiche during a seismic event. The project would not result in peculiar impacts that were not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 5.9-2) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The pr oject would approve a TTM and PRD to allow residences, 30 ADUs, one manager’s construction of up to 30 single-family unit and related improvements. The area of impervious surface generated by the project would be negligible. The increase in storm flows would be managed on-site and no permits or approvals from the Colorado River Basin RWQCB, would be re quired. There would be no project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the i ssue area of Hydrology an d Water Quality, the foll owing findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been iden tified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to hydr ology and water quality impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 753 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 63 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.11 Land Use and Planning

5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR concluded that implementation of the GPU would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations applicable to land use within the City of Indio. Implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval ensured that no significant impacts would occur. The Land Use Element of the proposed GPU includes policies intended to minimize risks to people and the environment from land use and planning impacts.

5.11.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.10.4) and determined to have a less than significant impact. The project would be consistent with the DET land use designation in the GPU. The project would not physically di vide an established community. No new impact that differs from what was disclosed in the GPU PEIR would occur. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.10.4) and determined to have a less than significant impact. The GPU would be consistent with, and supplement, adopted plans and regulations governing land use and development in the Planning Area with respect to Southern California Association of Governments (S CAG’s) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 754 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 64 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), SCAG’s Sustainability Planning Grant Program, and the City of Indio’s adopted Specific Plans. As stated, the project would be consistent with the DET land use designation. The project does not involve a conflict with any other land use related policy, as detailed throughout this exemption check list, and impacts relate d to conflict with a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would not occur.

Impacts would remain less than significant. The project would not result in a new impact.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify mitigation measures related to land use and planning.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 755 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 65 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.12 Mineral Resources

5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR

As stated in the GPU PEIR, most of the land located in Indio’s City limits is identified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -1; and therefore, has little potential to contain mineral resources.

Future development in areas designated for urban uses and identified as MRZ-1 would not result in a significant impact relative to loss of availability of a known mineral resource. However, the conversion of MRZ-2 lands to a residential land use that inhibits their availability for mineral resource extraction is a significant impact that, due to the unique nature of mineral resource formation and location, constitutes an irreversible loss of known mineral resources. Therefore, the GPU would result in significant impact associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures.

5.12.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource
that would be a 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. Would the project result in the loss of availab ility of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.11.4) and determined to have significant and unavoidable impact where development occurs within the MRZ-2. The project site is located within MRZ-1. Construction of the pr oposed project would have no adverse effect on the availability of mineral resour ces. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 756 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 66 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No new impact would occur.
b. Would the project 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? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.11.4) and determined to have significant and unavoidable impact where deve lopment occurs within the MRZ-2 area designations. As stated, the project site is not within the MRZ-2 area and does not include a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no new impacts would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Mineral Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project No mitigation measures identified in the GPU PEIR are applicable to the project.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 757 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 67 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.13 Noise

5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR identified significant and unavoidable noise impacts associated with construction activities, traffic noise, and ground borne vibr ation. Implementation of policies and mitigation measures would reduce noise-relate d impacts to the extent feasible, but impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. Noise im pacts related to airports and ai rstrips were found to be less than significant.

5.13.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project result in:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, exposure of people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 758 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 68 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.12.4) and was determined to be less than significant. Approval of the TTM and PRD would allow construction of up to 30` new single-family residences and 30 ADUs. As shown in Table 4.12-3, noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL (24-hour average) are compatible with residential environments. As shown in Figure 4.12-4, 2040 Noise Contours, the project site is within the 60 dBA contour for operation of Interstate 10 and outside the 60 dBA CNEL contou r for Jefferson Street. Thus, the s ite would be with in the 60 dBA compatibility standard shown in Table 4.12-3.

Operation of up to 61 new residences would generate up to 610 new daily trips assuming 10 trips per day per unit. Peak hour volumes are approximately 10 percent of the daily total; thus, 61 new trips could be added to the exis ting roadways. The addition of 61 trips would not affect baseline noise conditions given the existing uses in the area. The project would not noticeably impact exterior noise levels or cause existing noise levels less than the 60 dBA standard to exceed the standard at neighboring receivers. Impacts related to exterior traffic-related noise would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. Would the project result in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.12.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact with impleme ntation of mitigation. Approval of the TTM and PRD would allow the constructi on of up to 30 new single-family residences, 30 ADUs and one manager’s unit. Construction woul d not require heavy excavation, p ile driving, blasting or other activity on the project si te that would generate vibration. However, heavy equipment would be required for grading and related activities. As stated in the GPU PEIR, construction activities are evaluated as point sources and noise from construction sites typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dB(A) for every doubling of the distance. Therefore, c onservatively, projects th at include construction activities within 200 feet of a noise sensitive receiver may potentially result in substantial temporary noise increases. The closest receiver is the Shadow Hills High School to the south. The distance to the closest classroom is approximately 220 feet from the property line on the south side of Avenue 39. The distance to the closest residence to the east is approximately 400 feet.

Construction is not expected to occur within 2 00 feet of the nearest r eceiver; thus, temporary construction vibration would be less than significant.

With respect to operation, the vi bration velocity level threshol d of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible le vels for many people. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical bac kground vibration velocity, to 94 VdB, which is the standard for non-engineered timber and masonr y buildings. There are no activities occurring in the project area that genera te perceptible groundborne vibrat ion. Operation of the proposed

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 759 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 69 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
project was evaluated for potentia l exterior traffic related impacts caused by increased traffic volumes associated with the project. Single-f amily residences are considered a typical development that would not cause traffic on the existing road network to exceed City established thresholds or affect the distribut ion of nighttime traffic. The majo rity of all project traffic would be concentrated on Avenue 39 south of the site. Thus, temporary vibration impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.12.7) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated in the GPU PEIR, future development consistent with the GPU may include development in the vicinity of the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The project site is located on the north side of Interstate 10 and proximal to the Bermuda Dunes Airport. The project is outside the 60 dBA CNEL contour as depicted in Figure 4.12-2 within the PEIR.

Therefore, the project would not result in airp ort-related noise impacts to people residing or working within the project site. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project No mitigation measures identified in the GPU PEIR are applicable to the project.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 760 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 70 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.14 Population and Housing

5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU, based on the projections forecasted by the City, would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people and, since new housing would more than offset any displaced housing, no additio nal replacement housing would be necessary.

Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not contribute to a significant cumulative population and housing impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for through example, (for example, by proposing new businesses) homes and or indirectly extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.13.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impa ct. The project is consistent with the GPU land use and zoning designations for the site with approval of a TTM and PRD. Zoning designations are used by both local and regional agencies to de termine anticipated growth. Therefore, the development of the project at the proposed density, is planned by the GPU. The proj ect would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the surrounding area. No new impact would occur. b. Would the project displace substantial numbe rs of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 761 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 71 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.13.5) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The project could develop up to 30 si ngle-family residences, 30 ADUs and one manager’s unit with approval of a TTM and PRD. No housing would be removed; thus, the project w ould not displace s ubstantial numbers of existing or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to population and housing impacts.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 762 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 72 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.15 Public Services

5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU would cause fire protection, police, and library services to expand due to buildout. However, impacts we re found to be less than significant upon implementation of the regulatory requirements and GPU policies, and standard conditions of approval.

The GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU would gene rate new students that may result in the need for new and/or expanded school facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental impacts. However, the required compliance with the Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) would reduce impacts to less than significant.

5.15.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Libraries or local daycare
facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project result in substantial ad verse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental fac altered ilities, need for new or physically governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.14.4) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The GPU would facilitate development that would increase the demand for fire protection services such that both additional staff and new facilities would likely be needed to accommodate growth in the Planning Area. The Fire Department is able to increase

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 763 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 73 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
staff accordingly when new developments come online th rough Development Impact Fee earmarked for fire/emergency services. As disc ussed above, the City collects fees from new developments to fund fire facil ity buildings, equipment and trai ning facilities and services. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and GPU land use designation for the site. Further, the applicant would be required to pay impact fees to offset the cost of public services required to support the project. No new impacts related to fire protection services would occur.

Police protection?
No new Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.14.5) and was determined to have a less than significant im pact. The GPU would facilitate gr owth, which would increase the demand for police protection services such that both additional staff and new police facilities may be needed in order to accommodate growth in the Planning Area. Staffing needs would be addressed as service demand increases. The Po lice Department, using a collection of DIF earmarked for police services, is able to use these funds for police department buildings, equipment and training facilities. The pr oposed project is consistent w ith the zoning and GPU land use designation for the site. Further, th e applicant would be required to pay impact fees to offset the cost of public services required to support the project. No new impacts related to police protection services would occur.

Schools?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 5.14-3) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The GPU would directly influence the population of the Planning Area by providing land use designations th at would accommodate a total projection of 38,144 households. The student generation rates for districts that serve the Planning Area are 0.4 student/household for Desert Sa nd Unified School District (DSUSD) and 0.6 student per household for Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). Ther e are approximately 42,080 students enrolled in the DSUSD and CVUS D school districts. Based on the forecasted housing growth, and assuming a larger ratio of 0.6 students per household (CVUSD rate), a maximum of approximately 22,886 new students would be added to the City’s scho ol districts.

DSUSD and CVUSD have indicated that they are currently operating at or over capacity; however, enrollment trends over the past few years have been stabilizing. Although forecasted students is lower than forecasted previously, future student s generated by growth under the GPU have the potential to exceed existing school capacity. The school districts antici pate that new school construction would be required to accommodate these additional future students. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and GPU land use designation for the site. Further, the school districts would collect developmen t fees to off-set the cost of serving new students. No new impacts related to school services would occur.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 764 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 74 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Parks?
Impact. Impacts related to parks were evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impacts 4.14.6) and determined to have a less than significant impact. All new development must adhere to GPU goals and policies and be required to provide parkland or pay in-l ieu fees, as required by the Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the GPU land use de signation and no changes in land use assumptions used in the GPU PEIR are pr oposed. Therefore, approval of the TTM and PRD and potential development of the project woul d not generate unforeseen need for new or expanded parks.

Therefore, no new impact would occur.

Other public facilities?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.14.7), which specified other public facilities as library facilities and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The City of Indio is the responsible agency for the planning of new library fa cilities and anticipating demand to meet existing and future population needs. However, the potential impacts would be identified during the facility planning process, and the City would have the authority and responsibility to plan, design, approve, or construct library facilities. The project is consistent with the GPU land use designation and no changes in land use assumptions used in the GPU PEIR are proposed, therefore, approval of the TTM and PRD would not direc tly generate additional need for new or expanded libraries. Therefore, no new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify significant public services impacts or mitigation measures.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 765 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 75 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.16 Recreation

5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
As discussed above, the GPU PEIR concluded that the GPU would generate additional residents, which would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Project implementation would result in environmental impacts from th e provision of new and/or expanded recreational facilities. The physical de velopment of park facil ities would be addressed as individual projects are proposed. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and compliance with GPU policies and programs, impacts of the GPU would be less than significant.

5.16.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Would the project 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) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

neighborhood and regional parks a. Would the project increase the use of existing or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.14.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The GPU PEIR indicated that growth demand for recreational facilities are generated by the populations within proximity to these facilities. All new development must adhere to GPU goals and polic ies and be required to provide parkland or pay in-lieu fees, as required by the Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the GPU land use designation and no changes in land use assump tions used in the GPU PEIR are proposed.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 766 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 76 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Therefore, approval of the TTM and PRD and pote ntial development of a the project would not generate unforeseen need for new or expanded parks. Therefore, no new impact would occur. b. Does the project include recr eational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New Impact. This topic was not specifically evaluated in the GPU PEIR because it is a site- specific issue. The project does not include recreational facilities; however, it would contribute to a cumulative increase in demand for park resources. The GPU PEIR indicated that existing federal and state, and local regulations would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from the expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and trails pursuant to build out of the GPU. The project is consistent with the GPU land use designation with approval of a TTM and PRD. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Recreation, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project The GPU PEIR did not identify significant recreation impacts or mitigation measures.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 767 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 77 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.17 Transportation

5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR focused on addressing potential impacts to Level of Service on roadway segments, at intersections and freeway segments within the C ity of Indio with build out of the GPU. At the time the GPU and PEIR were prepared, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) had not replaced LOS as the primary metric used to address potential pr oject-related traffic impacts as part of the CEQA review process. The PEIR states that develo pment facilitated by the GPU would substantially degrade traffic flow alo ng four roadway segments (all located outside the City’s jurisdiction), at five intersections (all but one intersection is located outside the City’s jurisdiction) and along four freeway segments. This would result in a potentially significan t impact. Although mitigation measures are available to reduce identified signifi cant impacts to the intersections located within the City of Indio’s jurisdiction, the development facilitated by the GPU would result in significant impacts along roadway and freeway segments and intersections that are located outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Because the City of Indio cannot enforce the mitigation measures available to reduce impacts at these locations, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. None of the impacted roadway segments, intersections and fre eway segments are lo the cated proximal to project site.

The GPU was not found to conflict with any pr ogram, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Future development and capital improvement projects consistent with the GPU would be required to comply with regulations from the City’s roadway engineering standards, Indio Traffic Ordinance, consistency with the Bermuda Dunes Airport master plan, and California Fire Code emergency access requirements. Furthe rmore, future projects would be reviewed for consistency with GPU policies related to airpor t safety, traffic safet y, and emergency access.

Compliance with identified regulations and consistency with GPU policies would preclude creation of new traffic hazards. Therefore, growth facilitated by the GPU would not result in traffic hazards for motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestri ans. Impacts were determined to be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.

5.17.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 768 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 78 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. Would the project conflict with a program, pl an, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.15.4) and was determined to be less than significant. As stated in the GPU PEIR, no policy from the GPU would conflict with the traffic demand management strategies identified in the RTP/SCS. Several GPU goals and policies would support traffic demand management strategies. Thus, the GPU would not conflict with implementation of the SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SC S relative to alternative transportation policies or programs. The project would provide access and frontage improvements along Avenue

39. It would not conflict with GPU policies pert aining to regional tran sportation plans or alternative transportation modes. No change to the land uses analyzed under the GPU PEIR that would affect transportation facilities are proposed. No new impact would occur. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP U PEIR (Impact 4.15.4). Impacts were determined to be significant an d unavoidable. As stated, deve lopment facilitated by the GPU would substantially degrade traf fic flow along four roadway segm ents (all located outside the City’s jurisdiction, at five in tersections (all but one intersec tion located outside the City’s jurisdiction), and along four freeway segments. This would result in a potentially significant

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 769 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 79 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
impact. Although mitigation measures are available to reduce identified significant impacts to the intersections located within the City of Indio’s jurisdiction, the development facilitated by the GPU would result in significant impacts along roadway and freeway segments and intersections that are located outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Because the City of Indio cannot enforce the mitigation measures available to reduce im pacts at these locations, impact s would remain significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would be consistent with the GPU land use designation. Further, according to the Riverside County Transportation An alysis Guidelines (April 2020), Figure 3 – Screening Criteria for Development Projects, the proposed project would screen out of the need to prepare a VMT analysis based two criteria. The proposed project would meet the definition of a small project – less than 110 single family units. Further, the project is 100% affordable. No additional analysis is necessary. Thus, the project would not conflict w ith or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and no new impact would occur.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.15.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The GPU PEIR states that both public transportation improvements proposed by the GPU and future private development c ould potentially build hazardous roadway conditions due to design features or incompatible uses. However, all proposed development would be subject to the City’s road way engineering standards and comply with the land uses proposed in the GPU and the zoning c ode of the City. The City’s roadway design standards include specif ications for minimum curve radii, sight lines, design speeds, maximum grades, subgrade base, pavement thickness, and other roadway features. These safety checks in the planning process will avoid any design feature hazar ds and reject any incompatible uses without appropriate mitigation.

The project would provide one main access drivew ay along the north side of Avenue 39 and construct Dreams Lane half-width improvements and EVA access along the western site boundary.

The project would not result in any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses.

No change to the land uses analyzed under the GPU PEIR pertaining to transportation is proposed.

No new impact would occur.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.15.6) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. As stated in the GPU PEIR, similar to hazards design, proposed development could potentially build inefficient emergency access. However, by complying with the City’s roadway design standards and th e 2016 California Fire Code emergency access requirements, adopted as a part of the Fire Code of the City of Indio (Municipal Code Chapter 93).

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 770 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 80 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
This includes emergency access road dimensions, design, grades, gates, and other fire safety features. Additionally, the more stringent California Building Code access standards also have been adopted by the City to address potential emergency access issues associated with earthquakes, flooding, climate/strong wi nds, topography, and water shorta ges. Future development under growth facilitated by the GPU would be required to comply with these regulations when designing emergency access. Thus, compliance with the City’s roadway design standards and applicable City Municipal Code would preclude inadequate emergency access issues.

The project would not result in any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses.

All access and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to current codes. No change to the land uses analyzed under the GPU PEIR pertaining to transportation is proposed. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Transportation and Traffic, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project No mitigation measures identified in the GPU PEIR are applicable to the project.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 771 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 81 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
The GPU PEIR does not discuss Tribal Cultural Resources as an individual topical section. Rather, it is incorporated into the Cultural Resources discussion (see Section 5.5, Cultural Resources).

This discussion concluded that with implementation of regulatory requirements and GPU policies related to cultural resources, impacts to tribal cultural resources would also be less than significant.

5.18.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
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:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in
a local register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by (ii)
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
substantial adverse tribal a of significance the in cause a cultural project the Would a. change 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:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 772 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 82 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or No New Impact. As discussed in Section 5.5.2(a ), the project site is not identified as a historical resource and does not contain any significant historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The project would not result in impacts to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing. Mitigation Measure CR-3 from the GPU PEIR would be implemented at the City’s discretion. The project would not result in new impacts to historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). No new impact would occur. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to to be significant pursuant crit Public subdivision (c) of set forth in eria Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource the Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of resource to a California Native American tribe.

No New Impact.
below and Mitigation With implementation of GPU Goals and Policies listed Measure CR-3, no peculiar impacts that were not previously analyzed in the GPU PEIR would occur. No new impact would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Tribal Cultural Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts to cultural resources which were not discussed by the GPU PEIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU PEIR.

4. Feasible mitigation measures contained within the GPU PEIR Mitigation Measure CR- 3 will be applied to the project if applicable. The mitigation measures and the existing regulatory requirements provide protection for tribal cu ltural resources and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the PEIR and Applicable to the Project MM-CR-3: In areas of moderate, moderate-high, and high sensitivity for cultural resources, as well as areas not current mapped for sensitivity, the City shall either require future project applicants to conduct an archae ological field survey or conduc t construction monitoring by a qualified professional if ground disturbance is proposed. If surveys are conducted, the surveys shall be sent to the City of Indio for review and approval prior to issu ance of project-specific development permits.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 773 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 83 April 2026
Exemption Checklist

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Id entified in the GPU PEIR
As stated in the GPU PEIR , each sanitation or water district serving the Planning Area that treats wastewater for recycled water use is subject to water quality standards outlined in Title 22, Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations. Facilities are co ntinually monitored to ensure compliance with water quality treatment standards. Growth accommodated by the GPU would not result in an exceedance of the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB with adherence to applicable standards.

To ensure adequate system capacity to meet the growing needs of the City, the Indio Water Authority and Coachella District, partne Valley Water red with the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, which other main includes the region’s water purveyors (Coachella Water Authority, Desert Water Agency, VSD, and Mission Springs Water District) to develop an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan to address the Coachella Valley’s current and future water needs including historic and ongoing overdraft of the aquifer, water supply management, environmental and economic impacts, compliance with state and federal guidelines, and long-term sustainability.

With respect to stormwater, future development consistent with the GPU would involve grading or alteration of existing site conditions that would affect site runoff. Future development projects would be required to prepare grading and site drainage plans consistent with the RWQCB requirements. In many cases, site-specific drainage reports would be required, which would provide data on project drainage and storm water flows and identification of needed storm water improvements that would be subject to City approval. Based upon the report’s recommendations, conditions of project approval, and mitigation required to comply with CEQA, future development would be responsible for adding or upgrading infrastructure as needed to serve individual sites.

With respect to solid waste, GPU build out would result in the generation of1,070,960 tons of solid waste through 2040. The estimated conversion of a cubic yard to ton for a landfill is approximately

0.85 tons per cubic yard (USEPA 2016). The esti mated remaining capacity of Riverside County landfills is 181,783,284 cubic yards or 49,081,487 tons. Based on this capacity, the Riverside County landfills could accommodate the additional worst case/maximum of 48,680 tons per year or total of approximately one million tons of solid waste generated by growth under the GPU. Impacts to the provision of utilities would be less than significant.

5.19.2 Impacts Associat ed with the Project
Would the project:

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 774 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 84 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
Environmental Issues
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or
in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocat ion of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New Impact.

Resolution Nos. 10582 & 10583, regarding the Roadrunner Flats project fo... Page 775 of 825

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 85 April 2026
Exemption Checklist
The utility evaluation in the GPU PEIR (Impact 5.18-5) addressed demand for water, sewer, storm drainage and dry utilities (i.e ., electricity, natural gas and te lecommunications) and potential impacts were determined to be less than sign ificant. The proposed pr oject would connect to existing water, sewer, storm drain and dry u tilities located along Avenue 39. The Imperial Irrigation District would provide electrical service to the site (see March 3 2026 will serve letter).

As stated, an electrical distribution line would need to be extended from the Avenue 40 substation along Burr Street northwest to the site within existing rights-of-way and 10-foot wide public utility easement fronting the project site. The project is consistent with the zoning and GPU designation; thus, utility demand and relate d on- and off-site improvement s needed to extend utility infrastructure was included in the overall demand forecast and impact discussion for build out of the General Plan. All electrical work would occur within the right-of-way. Thus, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded infrastructure that could cause significant environmental effects. No impact peculiar to the project would occur that was not previously addressed in the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.16.5) and was determined to be less than significant. The GPU PEIR indicated that the GPU buildout would involve population growth and increased water demand. The growth would be dispersed among multiple purveyors working together consistent with the IRWMP to ensure supplies ar e available. No changes to the land uses analyzed in the GPU PEIR are proposed under the proj ect. No impact peculiar to the project would occur that was not previously addressed in the GPU PEIR. No new impact would occur.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU PEIR (Impact 4.16.4) and was determined to be less than significant. The exis ting wastewater collection system continually requires upgrades and improvements, as existing regulations evolve and infrastructure ages. Per the GPU, total population is forecasted to be 119,951 in 2040. Based on Valley Sanitary District’s (VSD) Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan, an average of 73 gallons of wastewater per capita, this would equate to a total demand of 8,756,423 gallons of wastewater treatment daily in the 2040 build out scenario. Per the VSD Master Plan, the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is projected to provide service for 10 million gallons per day (MGD) 2027, 13.3 mgd by 2045, and full build out of the wastewater facilities would allow for the processing of up to 20 mgd. Because the maximum GPU demand would be approximately 8.7 mgd, and the WRF would provide capacity for up to 10 mgd by 2027, and 13.3 mgd by 2045, the WRF would serve the growth fo recasted by the GPU. No