Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 981 of 2236 06 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Signage must be constructed and installed to meet or exceed all applicable codes and City requirements ( Refer to 111 Specific Plan Section 3.11).
Tenants may utilize standard corporate logos and/or prototypical signage graphics, subject to the approval of the Landlord and the City of Indio.
No sign company labels are permitted on the exposed surfaces of the signs, except those required by Underwriters Laboratories, which shall be placed in an inconspicuous location on the first letter only.
All raceways, transformers, electrode boxes, switches, wiring, conduit and access hatches shall be concealed.
Wall signs shall be attached directly to the lease space to which they refer.
Any tenant with stone material as part of store frontage shall have required sign backer and raceway as part of the tenant signage.
Tenant’s electronic signage shall be connected to the Tenant’s house panel and controlled by a time clock or energy management system. Signage shall be illuminated from dusk to 1:00 am at a minimum.
All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation must be sealed in a watertight condition and are patched to match adjacent finish.
It is the responsibility of the Tenant’s sign contractor to verify all conduit locations prior to fabrication.
All work must be performed by a licensed sign contractor. The selected sign company must provide evidence of general liability, property damage, business auto liability and workers comp per Landlord’s standard vendor requirements.
The Tenant shall pay for all signs, their construction, their installation and final connection to the transformer and all other labor and materials and maintenance. Tenant sign contractor must file, pay for and obtain any licenses, permits and variances, as required for sign installation.
Notwithstanding the maximum square footages specified for copy area allowances, sign and typography in all cases shall appear balanced and in scale within the context of the sign space and the buildings as a whole. Thickness, height, and color of sign lettering shall be visually balanced and in proportion to other signs on the building.
All sign fabrication work shall be of excellent quality. Surfaces of all signage are intended to be flat without bulges, oil-canning or other deformities. Any seams on signage faces should be finished smoothly. All logo images and type styles shall be accurately reproduced. The Landlord reserves the right to reject any fabrication work deemed by the Landlord to be below standard.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 982 of 2236 07 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
RESTRICTIONS
The following are prohibited:
• Permanent advertising devices such as attraction boards, posters, banners and flags, except where specifically approved by the Owner/Developer and the City. • Exposed junction boxes, transformers, lamps, tubing, conduit, raceways, or neon crossovers of any type.
• Sign manufacturer’s names, stamps, or decals visible from the street or normal viewing angles.
• Luminous-vacuum formed acrylic signs and letters including pre-manufactured and franchise signs, with the exception of the site directional signage approved by the Owners/Developer and the City.
• Paper, cardboard, or Styrofoam signs, stickers, or decals hung around, on, or behind storefronts.
• Exposed fastening devices, unless integral to the sign’s design intent. • Simulated materials (i.e. wood grained plastic laminates) or wall covering. • Animated lights or other “moving” sign components, except where specifically mentioned in these guidelines.
• A-frame “sandwich” signs.
• Other requirements of the City of Indio except as modified herein.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 983 of 2236 08 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
SIGN PROGRAM
Type I: Project ID and Project Component ID Location Plan I-A Multi-Tenant Monument Sign
I-B P1 and P3 Tenant Monument Signs
Type II: Tenant Signage
II-A Wall Sign
II-B Window Sign
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 984 of 2236 09 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLA
Sc
Jo
D
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
SCALE 1” = 20’ 0 5 10 20 40
6 1
1 2
2 3
4 5
7 7
7 8
8 8
9 9
10 11
11 12
4 21
6 14
14 14
16 16
16 17
17 18
19 22
23 20 6 21
20 13
6 6
KEYNOTE LEGEND
1 PROPERTY LINE
2 EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN - PROT
3 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN-PL
4 PROPOSED PLANTING AREA - TYPICAL
5 DECORATIVE POTTERY. TYPICAL.
6 PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SIDEWALK
GUTTER AT RIGHT-OF-WAY PER CIVIL DRAWINGS
7 OUTDOOR DINING FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESI
8 PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PAVING
9 TRUNCATED DOMES AT CURB RAMPS. TYPICAL.
10 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER.
11 ACCESSIBLE AISLE PER CIVIL ENGINEER. TYPICAL.
12 STANDARD PARKING STALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER. T
13 STRIPED CROSSWALK PER CIVIL ENGINEER.
14 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECT.
15 EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN-PLAC
16 PROPOSED LONG-TERM BIKE STORAGE - REFER TO
DRAWINGS FOR QUANTITIES
17 PROPOSED BIKE RACK - REFER TO ARCHITECTS’ DR
QUANTITIES
18 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STALLS PER ARCHIT
19 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING CAPABLE STALLS PE
20 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PER CIVIL ENGINEER -
21 3’ HIGH SCREEN WALL AT ROW ALONG DRIVE-THRU
22 PROPOSED PYLON SIGN PER SIGNAGE CONSULTAN
23 PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN PER SIGNAGE CONS
IRRIGATION DESIGN NOTES
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE A FULLY AUTOMATIC UNDER
SYSTEM. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES WILL BE INSTALLE
APPLICABLE CODES. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGN
CONSTRUCTED TO BE AS EFFICIENT IN TERMS OF WATER USAG
WATER CONSERVATION PRODUCTS (HIGH EFFICIENCY / LOW P
AND AN EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) WEATHER BASED CONTRO
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SYSTEM DESIGN.
GENERAL DESIGN NOTES
1. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL ACCURATELY SHOW PLACE
SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS.
2. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE AWARE OF UTILITY, SEWE
EASEMENT AND PLACE PLANTING LOCATIONS ACCORDINGLY
OF INDIO REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS (INCLUDING PUBLIC RIGH
SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER. THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SH
MAINTAINED PER CITY OF INDIO REQUIREMENTS.
4. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, INC
TREES, SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT P
PROJECT SUMMARY
TOTAL PROJECT AREA 90,868.73 S
TOTAL SITE AREA 80,552.61 SF
PROPOSED PLANTING IMPROVEMENTS 17,419.08 SF
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 21.6%
I-B
SIGN TYPE I: PROJECT ID AND PROJECT COMPONENT ID LOCATION PLAN I-A Multi-Tenant Monument Sign
I-B Tenant P1 and P3 Monument Sign
I-B
I-A
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 985 of 2236 10 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 04/03/2026 luribe VALID. ORDINANCES SHALL NOT BE SUCH CODES OR A P P R O V E D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNER:_____________________ PLANNING DIVISION Apr 08, 2026 nguitron
I-A MULTI-TENANT MONUMENT SIGN
Configuration: New monument sign at north corner of existing vehicular acces on Rubidoux where shown on location plan.
Location: Along Highway 111 and Rubidoux Street where shown on location plan.
Per the city code ( Refer to 111 Specific Plan Section 3.11.C.1.f ) NOTE : Shop drawings are not part of this entitlement submittal and will be provided at the time of sign permit application. 6’-6” 1’-6” 5’-0”
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 986 of 2236 11 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 2'-0" 9'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-0"
13'-4"
2'-0" 9'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-0"
13'-4"
2'-0" 9'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-0"
13'-4"
2'-0" 9'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-0"
13'-4"
00 10' 20'
10'-0" max. width
1'-6" max. height
12" clear
12" clear
10'-0" max. width
1'-6" max. height
10'-0" max. width
3'-0"
5'-0"
1'-6" max. height
2'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" max. width
3'-0"
5'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
I-B TENANT MONUMENT SIGN BUILDING P1 & P3
Defenition: Building P1 and P3 will have their own monument sign.
Location: As shown on the location plan.
NOTE: Shop drawings are not part of this entitlement submittal and will be provided at the time of sign permit application.
PAD 1 MONUMENT SIGN PLAN & ELEVATIONS 1/8” SCALE 1/8” SCALE PAD 3 MONUMENT SIGN PLAN & ELEVATION PAD 3 MONUMENT SIGN
PAD-1 MONUMENT SIGN
SCREEN WALL PLAN
SCREEN WALL
SIGNAGE SIGNAGE
SIGNAGE SIGNAGE
SCREEN WALL
SCREEN WALL
FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
PLAN
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 987 of 2236 12 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO Sc
Jo
D
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
SCALE 1” = 20’ 0 5 10 20 40
6 1
1 2
2 3
4 5
7 7
7 8
8 8
9 9
10 11
11 12
4 21
6 14
14 14
16 16
16 17
17 18
19 22
23 20 6 21
20 13
6 6
KEYNOTE LEGEND
1 PROPERTY LINE
2 EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN - PROT
3 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN-PL
4 PROPOSED PLANTING AREA - TYPICAL
5 DECORATIVE POTTERY. TYPICAL.
6 PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SIDEWALK
GUTTER AT RIGHT-OF-WAY PER CIVIL DRAWINGS
7 OUTDOOR DINING FURNITURE PER INTERIOR DESI
8 PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PAVING
9 TRUNCATED DOMES AT CURB RAMPS. TYPICAL.
10 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER.
11 ACCESSIBLE AISLE PER CIVIL ENGINEER. TYPICAL.
12 STANDARD PARKING STALL PER CIVIL ENGINEER. T
13 STRIPED CROSSWALK PER CIVIL ENGINEER.
14 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECT.
15 EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN-PLAC
16 PROPOSED LONG-TERM BIKE STORAGE - REFER TO
DRAWINGS FOR QUANTITIES
17 PROPOSED BIKE RACK - REFER TO ARCHITECTS’ DR
QUANTITIES
18 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STALLS PER ARCHIT
19 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING CAPABLE STALLS PE
20 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PER CIVIL ENGINEER -
21 3’ HIGH SCREEN WALL AT ROW ALONG DRIVE-THRU
22 PROPOSED PYLON SIGN PER SIGNAGE CONSULTAN
23 PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN PER SIGNAGE CONS
IRRIGATION DESIGN NOTES
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE A FULLY AUTOMATIC UNDER
SYSTEM. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES WILL BE INSTALLE
APPLICABLE CODES. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGN
CONSTRUCTED TO BE AS EFFICIENT IN TERMS OF WATER USAG
WATER CONSERVATION PRODUCTS (HIGH EFFICIENCY / LOW P
AND AN EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (ET) WEATHER BASED CONTRO
BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SYSTEM DESIGN.
GENERAL DESIGN NOTES
1. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL ACCURATELY SHOW PLACE
SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVERS.
2. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE AWARE OF UTILITY, SEWE
EASEMENT AND PLACE PLANTING LOCATIONS ACCORDINGLY
OF INDIO REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS (INCLUDING PUBLIC RIGH
SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY OWNER. THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SH
MAINTAINED PER CITY OF INDIO REQUIREMENTS.
4. ALL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, INC
TREES, SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT P
PROJECT SUMMARY
TOTAL PROJECT AREA 90,868.73 S
TOTAL SITE AREA 80,552.61 SF
PROPOSED PLANTING IMPROVEMENTS 17,419.08 SF
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 21.6%
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLA
SIGN TYPE II (TYP.): TENANT SIGNAGE
II-A Wall Sign
II-B Window Sign
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-A
II-B
II-B
II-B
II-B II-A
Monument Sign
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 988 of 2236 13 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
II-A WALL SIGN
Definition: Sign being applied directly to or projecting out and parallel to the facade. Only the Tenants with frontage on the sidewalk shall have a wall sign per the city code.
Location: Building façade
• Wall signs shall be located above the storefront and at least 12 inches from any eave or edge of building above and have a 24” clearance from openings. • Sign thickness (as measured from the wall) shall not exceed four inches. • All channel letters to be fabricated of Aluminum with two to three inches (2”-3”) returns.
Sign face letters to be Aluminum Face and back-lit (Halo Lit) illuminated. • Tenants with minor accents such as logos and shields can be face-lit. • Channel letters must have a minimum of two 1/4” diameter drain holes at bottom of every letter.
• Signs shall have a minimum height of ten inches (10”) and a maximum height of two feet and six inches (2’-6”). Sign length not to exceed 70% of linear length of wall area. • Signs mounting to stone facades must use a raceway (1” depth max) and 1/8” thick aluminum backer. Cannot exceed 24” in height.
• All sign letters will be secured by concealed fasteners, stainless steel, nickel or cadmium plated and pegged out from wall 1”-2” to allow water runoff and for halo effect. • Tenant’s signage shall follow the standards per city code ( Refer to 111 Specific Plan Section 3.11.C.1.a - Diagram extracted below )
A : 10” (min.) - 2’-6” (max.)
B : 70% ( max.) of linear length of wall area
C : > 24” clearance from openings
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 989 of 2236 14 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
1. STANDARD WALL ATTACHMENT
2. STANDARD WALL ATTACHMENT WITH BACKER AND RACEWAY
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
1”
2”
2” MAX.
2” MAX.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 990 of 2236 15 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
3. STANDARD WALL ATTACHMENT FOR BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS
4. STANDARD WALL ATTACHMENT FOR UNIT NUMBERS
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
NOTE : Shop drawings are not part of this entitlement submittal and will be provided at the time of sign permit application.
NOTE : Shop drawings are not part of this entitlement submittal and will be provided at the time of sign permit application.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 991 of 2236 16 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
30'-0"
EQ 21'- 0" max. width (70% of total wall length) EQ2'-6" max. HT. min. clearance 2'-0"
25'-0"
17'- 6" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
HT.
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. cleareance
1'-0"
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
47'- 4" total wall length
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
54'-6" total wall length
PAD-1 NORTH ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-1 SOUTH ELEVATION
PAD-1 ELEVATIONS
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 992 of 2236 17 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
35'-0"
24'-6" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
34'-0"
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
23'-10" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. cleareance
1'-0"
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
60'- 0" total wall length
69'-0" total wall length
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
PAD-1 WEST ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-1 EAST ELEVATION
PAD-1 ELEVATIONS
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 993 of 2236 18 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 35'-0" total wall length
24'-6" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
min. cleareance
1'-0" min. cleareance 1'-0"
23'-0"
16'-0" max. width
(70% of total wall length)
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
35'-0" total wall length
EQ EQ
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
PAD-2 NORTH ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-2 SOUTH ELEVATION
PAD-2 ELEVATIONS
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 994 of 2236 19 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 43'- 8 1/2"
30'- 6" max. width
(70% of total wall length)
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
27'-8"
19'- 4" max. width
(70% of total wall length)
EQ EQ
EQ EQ
min. cleareance
1'-0"
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
93'-0" total wall length
99'-6" total wall length
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
PAD-2 WEST ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-2 EAST ELEVATION
PAD-2 ELEVATIONS
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 995 of 2236 20 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 40'-0"
28'-0" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
min. clearance 2'-0"
min. cleareance
1'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
19'-8"
13'-10" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
79'-0" total wall length
77'- 0" total wall length
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
PAD-3 NORTH ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-3 SOUTH ELEVATION
PAD-3 ELEVATIONS
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 996 of 2236 21 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO 44'- 0" total wall length
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
30'-9" max. width
(70% of total wall length) EQ EQ
30'- 7"
21'- 4" max.width
(70% of total wall length)
min. cleareance
1'-0"
min. clearance 2'-0"
2'-6" max.
height
00 10' 20'
00 10' 20'
1'-0" min. clr.
1'-0" min. clr.
41'-0" total wall length
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTE
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIA
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. A
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS,
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FRO
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND CO
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FR
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOI
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GR
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW TH
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FO
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTAN
COMM
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNI
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERR
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARAD
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELL
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLOR
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTES
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINAL
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAM
ACACIA STENOPHY
(SHOESTRING ACAC
LAGERSTROEMIA IN
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
SOPHORA SECUND
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTI
WASHINGTONIA RO
(MEXICAN FAN PAL
PHOENIX DACTYLI
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PA
PAD-3 WEST ELEVATION
II-A WALL SIGN ( CON’T )
LOCATIONS OF STANDARD WALL SIGN
PAD-3 EAST ELEVATION
PAD-3 ELEVATIONS
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACE - PHASE II
82227 CA-111, Indio, CALIFORNIA
D E S I G N R E V I E W
PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING DESIGN NOTES
THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. AL
APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, F
BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM
TAKEN FROM THE SITE. GROUND COV
THE SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FRO
OFF. ALL THE FLOWER AND SHRUB B
CONSERVE WATER, LOWER THE SOIL
SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GRO
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
CLIMATE ZONES FACTOR
WATER USE ABBREVIATIONS ARE AS FOL
H = HIGH WATER NEEDS
M = MEDIUM WATER NEEDS
L = LOW WATER NEEDS
VL = VERY LOW WATER NEEDS
SH
SYMBOL BOTANIC
COMMO
ALOE ‘BLUE ELF’
BLUE ELF ALOE
BACCHARIS X ‘CENTENNIA
CENTENNIAL BROOM
BOUGAINVILLEA ‘MONKA’
BOUGAINVILLEA
CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIM
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADIS
DASYLIRION WHEELERI
DESERT SPOON
GLANDULARIA PULCHELLA
ROCK VERBENA
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
YELLOW LANTANA
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESC
TEXAS RANGER
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
DEER GRASS
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
PROSTRATE ROSEMARY
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA
COAST ROSEMARY
TR
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAM
(COMMON NAME
ACACIA STENOPHYLL
(SHOESTRING ACACIA
LAGERSTROEMIA IND
(CRAPE MYRTLE)
PHOENIX DACTYLIFE
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
SOPHORA SECUNDIF
(TEXAS MOUNTAIN
LAUREL)
TIPUANA TIPU
(TIPU TREE)
EXISTIN
WASHINGTONIA ROB
(MEXICAN FAN PALM
PHOENIX DACTYLIF
‘MEDJOOL’
(MEDJOOL DATE PAL
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 997 of 2236 22 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
WALL SIGN DESIGN CHARACTER
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 998 of 2236 23 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
II-B WINDOW SIGN
Definition: Sign being applied directly to the storefront windows and/or doors. Window signs also include posters for advertisements and sales, product merchandise posters, open/closed signs, and business names and logos. ( Per the 111 Specific Plan ) Tenant’s signage shall follow the standards per city code ( Refer to 111 Specific Plan Section
3.11.C.1.b )
WINDOW SIGN DESIGN CHARACTER
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 999 of 2236 24 JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO.JOB NO
DATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATEDATED
2023-10562023-105620
2026-05-042026-05-042
INDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO GRAND MARKETPLACEINDIO
WINDOW SIGN
SUITE NUMBER LOCATION AND OPERATION SIGNS
6”
6”
1’-0”
1”
1. TYPICAL OPEN/CLOSED SIGN TO BE USED
BY ALL SMALLER SHOPS AND PAD TENANTS TO BE
VISIBLE BY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
2. SUITE NUMBERS MUST BE 6” TALL AND INSTALLED
ON THE GLASS WINDOW ABOVE THE MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR. MATERIAL FOR SUITE NUMBER AND OPERATION SIGNS IS WHITE CUT VINYL.
3. SUITE NUMBERS ALSO NEED TO BE INSTALLED ON
THE BACK DOORS. BLACK CUT VINYL FOR SUITE
NUMBERS AT BACK DOORS.
HOURS OF
OPERATION
EXAMPLES:
Configuration:
• Tenant specific signage shall be placed within their entry premises and NOT on store front glass
• There shall be no permanent or temporary signage attached to the storefront glass.
SUITE #
SUITE # SUITE #
BUSINESS HOURS
MON-THUR
FRI-SUN
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1000 of 2236 3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m April 28, 2026
Mr. Nikolas Guitron
City of Indio
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
Subject: CEQA Section 15183 Consistency Analysis
Indio Grand Marketplace
Dear Mr. Nikolas Guitron,
The project property is located on approximately 16.48 acres south of Highway 111 and west of Rubidoux Street in the City of Indio, California. The project is proposing the redevelopment of the Indio Grand Marketplace that encompasses approximately 16.48 acres and is located south of and adjacent to Highway 111, west of Rubidoux Street, north of Plaza Avenue, if it were extended west from Rubidoux, and approximately 300 feet east of Monroe Street.
The project is located in the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan (SP), which was adopted by the City in September 2022 (amended November 2024), which was designated as an implemen8ng “ac8on plan” of the Indio 2040 General Plan in compliance with the cer8fied 2040 General Plan EIR (GP EIR). According to the 111 Corridor Specific Plan and the Indio General Plan, the project is located within the Midtown (MT) Center, which provides for ac8ve, mixed-use buildings at higher intensi8es, community gathering spaces, and land uses to support residents and visitors.
The MT Center also provides for ver8cal and horizontal mixed-use development (Indio GP, page 3-15). Within this designa8on, the maximum dwelling unit per acre is 40 du/ac with a maximum floor area ra8o of 1. Per the Indio zoning map, the site is located within the Mixed Use Corridor (MU-C) designa8on.
Project Descrip8on
The project includes a Condi8onal Use Permit (CUP) and a Tenta8ve Parcel Map (TPM). The CUP will allow for the construc8on of drive-through facili8es. The TPM (TPM 39527) will divide the property into 7 Parcels. Since the project includes a CUP, the project is also subject to Planning Review Discre8onary (PRD).
The project is being completed in three (3) phases.
Phase I, which was entitled in May 2025, is currently under construction and includes two (2) new retail buildings totaling 12,800 square feet. One building will provide 4,800 square
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1001 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m feet of retail space, while the second building will contain 8,000 square feet, including 2,800 square feet dedicated to medical office use. The new buildings are proposed along Highway 111, generally east of the existing Harbor Freight building and west of the Mall’s primary entrance off Hwy 111. Phase I will be developed on the existing parking area associated with the Indio Grand Marketplace shopping center and includes exterior improvements to the existing Harbor Freight building which are also under construction.
The two new buildings under construction will be located on Parcel 1 of TPM 39527, which is approximately 1.451 acres in size. The existing Harbor Freight building will be located on Parcel 7 of TPM 39527 and consists of approximately 2.195 acres.
Phase II will develop three (3) new drive-thru buildings for restaurant and service uses, including a +/- 3,390 square foot bank with a drive-thru window, a +/- 3,400-square-foot fast casual restaurant with drive-thru window, and +/-3,500-square-foot quick-serve food restaurant with drive-thru window. Phase II is proposed along Highway 111, east of the primary entrance off Hwy 111 and west of Rubidoux Street in the northeast por8on of the property. Like Phase I, Phase II will also be developed on the exis8ng Indio Grand Marketplace shopping center parking area. Phase II will be located on Parcel 2, Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 of TPM 39527 which encompass approximately 2.09 acres.
Phase III will be the demoli8on of approximately 95,000 square feet of the exis8ng Indio Grand Marketplace mall, specifically the center por8on where the mall shops are located.
AHer demoli8on, the mall’s two anchor tenant buildings will remain and will be located on two (2) separate parcels. Parcel 5 and Parcel 6 consist of approximately 6.30 acres and
4.44 acres, respec8vely.
As outlined above, the redevelopment of the Indio Grand Marketplace will replace 95,000 square feet of an exis8ng shopping mall with 23,700 square feet of modern energy efficient buildings.
This will result in an approximately 71,300 square foot reduc8on in overall building area across the 16.48-acre property upon the comple8on of the three phases.
The project site is located within a fully developed commercial corridor along Highway 111 and is surrounded by exis8ng urbanized development, including commercial retail uses and arterial roadway infrastructure. The site consists en8rely of previously graded and paved commercial property and contains no undeveloped land or na8ve habitat.
The following analysis evaluates the project’s consistency with the Indio 2040 General Plan, General Plan Program EIR (GP EIR), the Mixed Use Corridor (MU-C).
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1002 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m 15183 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The black text that follows is taken verba8m from the California Code of Regula8ons, Sec8on 15183, while the italic blue text reflects the consistency discussion related to that par8cular requirement.
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15183 - Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by exis8ng zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was cer8fied shall not require addi8onal environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repe88ve environmental studies.
TPM 39527 is consistent with the Indio General Plan and is therefore covered by the General Plan 2040 Program Environmental Impact Report (PFEIR). The project is consistent with exis+ng land use designa+on of Midtown (MT) Center and zoning designa+on of Mixed Use Corridor (MU-C). According to Indio’s land use designa+on, MT Centers are allowed a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum floor area ra+o (FAR) of 1 (Indio General Plan, Table 3-2, General Plan Place Types). The project proposes commercial and office uses, consistent with those allowed in MT Centers (Indio Unified Development Code, Table 2.03.02-1, Allowed Uses – Mixed-Use Zones), and the project will not exceed the maximum FAR of 1. As a mapping exercise only, the TPM causes no project specific significant environmental effects. The CUP will allow the proposed drive through uses on the property.
Although the project is consistent with the development density established by exis+ng zoning, community plan, or general plan policies, analysis of project generated traffic was conducted to ensure that the project would not result in impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR. In January 2026, a Traffic Circula+on Assessment was completed for the proposed project by Linsco?, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). The analysis evaluated the poten+al traffic circula+on impacts associated with the proposed project developments in Phases I and II, in conjunc+on with the demoli+on in Phase III. The analysis is consistent with Indio requirements, which are based on the County of Riverside Transporta+on Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) and current Ins+tute of Transporta+on Engineers (ITE) Trip Genera+on Manual methodologies. The analysis concluded that the proposed project would reduce
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1003 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m the floor area of the Indio Grand Marketplace by 71,300 square feet (a nearly 75% reduc+on of the impacted structures). The project would also reduce trip genera+on by 41 average daily trips (adt) and would be an+cipated to generate fewer than 100 AM or PM peak hour trips on a “typical” weekday for all three (3) development analyses. Therefore, LLG concluded that the proposed project’s traffic circula+on impact is considered “insignificant,” and the project would not require any specific intersec+on analysis that includes LOS. Trip genera+on and associated impacts would be below that analyzed in the GP EIR.
Noise impacts from the construc+on and demoli+on of the proposed retail, and drive-thru buildings will be temporary and intermi?ent. Construc+on ac+vi+es will be limited to the hours and opera+onal requirements established by the City’s Municipal Code (Sec+on 95C.08).
Opera+onal noise from the proposed drive-thru, office and retail facili+es would not result in significant impacts. The nearest residen+al receptor is located approximately 500 feet from the Phase II project boundary and approximately 630 feet from the nearest drivethru speaker loca+on. The reduc+on in trip genera+on would result in a reduc+on in resultant mobile source noise. Given the substan+al distance from new noise sources, the reduc+on in trip genera+on and the presence of intervening commercial development and Highway 111 traffic noise, opera+onal noise levels will not create a significant environmental effect. The proposed project will not result in impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR.
Short-term construc+on emissions will be temporary and limited in dura+on. The project will comply with applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and thresholds.
Rela+ve to opera+ons, the proposed project will result in a reduc+on in trip genera+on associated with the Indio Grand Marketplace. This will result in an associated reduc+on in mobile source emissions. The reduc+on in structural square footage is also an+cipated to result in the reduc+on of building related emissions. Although some of the proposed uses tend to be more energy-intensive per square foot than the exis+ng 95,000 sf retail building, the substan+al reduc+on in total floor area and the applica+on of current energy efficiency standards would result in a net decrease in non-mobile opera+onal GHG emissions.
Opera+onal emissions a?ributed to the proposed uses would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds and would be consistent with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The project would not result in significant air quality impacts nor would it result in impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1004 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m The project site consists of exis+ng paved parking areas and previously developed commercial property. There are no wetlands, riparian habitat, sensi+ve biological resources, or na+ve vegeta+on communi+es present on-site. Given the fully urbanized and disturbed condi+on of the property, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and no impacts beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR are an+cipated (b) In approving a project mee8ng the requirements of this sec8on, a public agency shall limit its examina8on of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an ini8al study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, The project is located on a fully developed site, which currently operates as a parking lot and shopping mall building associated with the Indio Grand Marketplace. The project proposes commercial uses consistent with the MT Center General Plan land use designa+on and Mixed Use Corridor (MU-C) zoning designa+on. Due to the property’s developed condi+on and consistency with the General Plan and Highway 111 Specific Plan, the project will not result in environmental effects that were not already analyzed in the GP EIR.
TPM 39527 is a site-specific subdivision. As a paper mapping product, it creates no projectspecific environmental impacts beyond those associated with the implementa+on of the project.
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning ac8on, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent,
TPM 39527 is a site-specific subdivision with no poten+al for environmental impacts of its own. Processing of the CUP will allow drive-through uses on the property. The proposed construc+on, demoli+on and opera+onal ac+vi+es associated with the redevelopment of the Indio Grand Marketplace was an+cipated in and will be compliant with the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan, which was designated as an implemen+ng “ac+on plan” of the Indio 2040 General Plan in compliance with the cer+fied 2040 General Plan EIR. It is also compliant with the Mixed Use Corridor (MU-C) zoning designa+on. (3) Are poten8ally significant off-site impacts and cumula8ve impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning ac8on, The proposed project is not an+cipated to have significant off-site or cumula+ve impacts.
Addi+onally, the site has been developed and operated as the Indio Grand Marketplace shopping mall and associated parking lot.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1005 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m The project replaces 95,000 square feet of exis+ng older commercial space with 23,700 square feet of modern energy efficient buildings and generates fewer trips. Development of the commercial buildings will occur on an exis+ng parking lot. The demoli+on area will operate as a new parking lot. The proposed redevelopment of the Indio Grand Marketplace will not change the use of the area, as the site will s+ll operate as commercial uses. Offsite and cumula+ve impacts are not expected beyond those analyzed in the GP EIR.
or
(4) Are previously iden8fied significant effects which, as a result of substan8al new informa8on which was not known at the 8me the EIR was cer8fied, determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
The proposed project presents no new informa+on than was envisioned by the Indio 2040 General Plan and the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan, nor more severe environmental impact than was addressed in the GP EIR. See above discussion for evalua+on of projectrelated traffic, noise, air quality, and biological impacts. (c) If 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 substan8ally mi8gated by the imposi8on of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an addi8onal EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
The proposed project is subject to uniformly applied Condi+ons of Approval as may be deemed necessary by the City.
(d) This sec8on shall apply only to projects which meet the following condi8ons:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, The proposed project is consistent with the approved Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan. (B) A zoning ac8on which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a par8cular density of development, or
The proposed project is consistent with the approved Indio General Plan and Zoning Map, as well as the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan. According to Indio’s land use designa+on, MT Centers are allowed a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum floor area ra+o (FAR) of 1 (Indio General Plan, Table 3-2, General Plan Place
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1006 of 2236 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clerance
Indio Grand Marketplace
April 28, 2026
3 4 2 0 0 B o b H o p e Dr iv e , Ra n c h o M i r a ge , C A 92 2 7 0 | 7 60 . 3 2 0 . 9 81 1 | ms a c o n s ul t i n gi n c .c o m Types). The project proposes commercial uses, consistent with those allowed in MT Centers (Indio Unified Development Code, Table 2.03.02-1, Allowed Uses – Mixed-Use Zones), and the project will not exceed the maximum FAR of 1.
(C) A general plan of a local agency, and
The proposed project is consistent with the approved Indio 2040 General Plan. (2) An EIR was cer8fied by the lead agency for the zoning ac8on, the community plan, or the general plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the cer+fied Indio 2040 General Plan EIR.
We trust this is helpful and demonstrates CEQA clearance for the proposed project under Sec8on 15183.
Sincerely,
Michelle Witherspoon, LEED AP BD&C / CPESC / REPA / QSD / QSP Director of Environmental Services
MSA Consul8ng, Inc.
Resolution Nos. 10607, 10608, and 10609, Recommendation from the Plannin... Page 1007 of 2236 City of Indio
City Council
September 16, 2026
STAFF REPORT
To: City Council
From: Jonathan Nicks, City Manager
Prepared by: Brian Halvorson, Dir. Of Community Development Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Project:
Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan and Supersession of Existing Plans, Zone Map Amendment, Development Agreement, and Financing Tentative Parcel Map for Approximately 183 Acres North of Interstate 10, South of Avenue 42, East of the Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel, and West of Monroe Street RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing concerning the Oasis at Indio Project, a proposed mixed-use development encompassing approximately 183 acres generally located southwest of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street and north of Interstate 10, and take one of the following alternative courses of action:
1. Deny the Project.
Adopt Resolution No. 10610 denying the Oasis at Indio Project, consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and based on the City Council’s independent findings set forth in the resolution. The denial encompasses General Plan Amendments GP-23-0001 and GP-26-0005; the requested rescission of the Gateway Specific Plan and Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan and adoption of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan, SP-23-0001; Zone Map Amendment ZMA-23-0001; Development Agreement DA-23-0001; and Financing Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799, PLAN-TPM-23-0001. Under this alternative, the Council would not certify the Final EIR or adopt the proposed CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
OR
2. Proceed with the Project Approval Process.
Take the following actions:
(a) Adopt Resolution No. 10611 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Oasis at Indio Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2024050578, adopting the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
AGENDA ITEM #12.2
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1008 of 2236 (b) Adopt Resolution No. 10612 approving General Plan Land Use Map Amendment GP-23-0001 and Mobility Element Circulation Map Amendment GP-26-0005, as shown in the resolution’s exhibits.
(c) Introduce Ordinance No. 1845 adopting the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan, SP-23-0001, including the revisions expressly approved by the City Council and incorporated into the ordinance’s exhibits, and superseding the Gateway Specific Plan and Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan to the extent those plans apply within the adopted Oasis at Indio Specific Plan boundary. (d) Introduce Ordinance No. 1846 approving Zone Map Amendment ZMA-23-0001 for the property identified in the ordinance’s exhibit.
(e) Introduce Ordinance No. 1847 approving Development Agreement DA-23-0001 between the City of Indio and BH Indio Land, LLC, in the form attached to the ordinance. (f) Adopt Resolution No. 10613, conditionally approving Financing Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799, PLAN-TPM-23-0001. The proposed map would divide approximately 183 acres, comprising Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 610-020-001, 610-020-010, 610-020-012, 610-020-013, 610-020-021, 610- 020-034, and 610-020-036, into four parcels for financing and conveyance purposes, subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Direct staff to return Ordinance Nos. 1845, 1846, and 1847 for subsequent adoption and coordinate the operative dates of the related approvals.
SUMMARY:
The proposed Oasis at Indio project is located on 183 acres (vacant) located north of the Interstate 10 freeway, south of Avenue 42, east of the Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel and west of Monroe Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 610-020-001, 610-020-010, 610-020-012, 610-020-013, 610-020-021, 610-020-034, 610-020-036) as shown on the attached vicinity map. A portion of the western property (approximately 85 acres) contains the Gateway Specific Plan and the Clinton Street Business Park project Master Plans that currently serve as the regulations that apply to this portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property is not encumbered by a project or master plan; therefore, the current General Plan designations and the Unified Development Code currently regulate the uses and future development of the property.
The Oasis at Indio is a proposed specific plan that envisions a mixed use development project and includes the following components for the Council’s consideration:
1) Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2024050578, ER-23-0001), CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The final Environmental Impact Report can be accessed at the City of Indio website at:
https://www.indio.org/departments/community-development-department/notices-documents/-folder304#docfold_14_349_585_304 2) A General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element Amendment (GP-23-0001) from 81.23 acres of Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) and 98.98 acres of Regional Commercial (RC) to 183 acres, Specific Plan (SP) and a General Plan Mobility Element Amendment (GP-26-0005) to remove a portion (south of Avenue 42, north of Interstate 10 freeway) of Clinton Street (Collector Street), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA-23-0001) from 83.84 acres of Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MUSP),
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1009 of 2236
76.42 acres of Regional Commercial (RC), and 19.96 acres of Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) to 183 acres, Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MUSP);
3) Rescind the Gateway Specific Plan and the Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan from the western 83.84 acre portion of the project site and replace with the adoption of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan (SP-23-0001) establishing a conceptual development plan, development regulations, objective design standards, and implementation requirements that includes two potential future land use development scenarios: 1) Maximum Buildout Scenario for a mixed-use development of up to 3,240 multi-family residential units, 20,000 square feet of commercial uses and 1,806,290 square feet of light Industrial uses or 2) A mixed-use development of up to 1,237 multi-family residential units, 71,600 square feet of commercial uses including a 128-key hotel and 1,806,290 square feet of Industrial uses.
4) A Development Agreement (DA-23-0001) between the City of Indio and the developer (BH Properties) for consideration of the rights and procedures for the development of 183 acres as part of the Oasis at Indio project.
5) Financial Parcel Map (Tract 38799, TPM-23-0001) to facilitate property financing and the transfer of portions of land in the form of 4 parcels (66.6-acre residential parcel, two commercial parcels, 4.6 acres and 10.1 acres), and a 99.7 acre industrial parcel) without creating legal building sites.
Together, these components make up the Oasis at Indio project that the applicant, BH properties, have requested to facilitate the planning and future development of the property. The Planning considered the project and all public testimony on May 27, 2026. Subsequently, on June 10, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended denial (5-0) of the project to the City Council as determine in Planning Commission Resolution 2141.
Following review of the project and recommendations of denial by the Planning Commission, the applicant drafted minor revisions to the specific plan document that includes expanded employment opportunities (additional land uses), reducing the maximum allowable building height (from 100 feet to 65 feet), increases in minimum building setbacks along the Interstate 10 requiring enhanced landscaping (36 inch box trees), and improved architectural design (enhanced architectural development standards/guidelines) for the industrial project component. Although these changes were not reviewed by the Commission, the proposed amendments address concerns that the Commission discussed at two public hearings and have been determined to be minor (and do not require a return to the Commission) and do not change the level of environmental review required for the project except if the applicant pursues a sports entertainment facility and/or entertainment and performance venue which would require additional environmental review at a later date.
Currently, the City Council is being asked to review the project and consider two options:
1) Deny the project in accordance with the Planning Commission Recommendations and Findings contained with Resolution No. 2141;
Or
2) Approve the project with the proposed minor revisions to the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1010 of 2236 An option for approval is included as amendments have been made to the Specific Plan following input received from the community, staff, and the Planning Commission. Therefore, the applicant voluntarily incorporated several changes intended to improve the Specific Plan while maintaining its fundamental vision and overall land use framework. A memo summarizing the changes as attached to the staff report.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan
The Oasis at Indio specific plan includes part of the area covered by the 2040 General Plan that is prepared to be consistent with and to implement the General Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code, Subsection 65450. The Specific Plan establishes the land use and development regulations, and implementation strategies to provide a balanced and sustainable residential, commercial and light industrial development with a range of employment-generating uses and medium to high-density residential uses. The intent of the Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach. The Specific Plan customizes the planning standards and review procedures to reflect the City’s vision for this area within the General Plan Avenue 42 Corridor Subarea. The proposed Specific Plan addresses infrastructure, public services, and utilities to ensure comprehensive and coordinated planning of the essential facilities needed to support the land uses described in the plan and meets the required contents pursuant to UDC 6.05.03.F.2.
Existing Setting and Surrounding Uses
The Specific Plan Area is bounded by Avenue 42 to the north, Monroe Street to the east, the Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel to the west, and the I-10 Freeway to the south (Attachment 1). Regional access to the Specific Plan Area is available from the I-10 Freeway via Monroe Street.
Primary arterial access to the Specific Plan Area is available from Monroe Street, Jackson Street, and Jefferson Street, which are accessible from/to I-10. The Specific Plan Area consists of seven Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 610-020-001, 610-020-010, 610-020-012, 610-020-013, 610- 020-021, 610-020-034, 610-020-036. While the APNs total 173.9 acres, the property has been surveyed reflecting a gross acreage of approximately 183 acres.
The approximately 183-acre site is irregular in shape and relatively flat, with a slight gradient from northwest to southeast. There is approximately 15 feet of fall across the site with an average slope of about 0.3%. The Specific Plan Area is currently undeveloped vacant land with a few remnants of former development/structures for agricultural purposes including several concrete pads on the north-central portion of the subject property, and two agricultural standpipes on the northwest corner and central portion of the property. The Site is not located within a 100-year or 500-year flood zone, there are no sole-source aquifers, groundwater monitoring wells, and no evidence of public water sources within the Specific Plan Area. The site is surrounded by active agriculture land uses and vacant land to the north, the Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel, vacant land, and a landscaping supply facility (Southwest Boulder & Stone) to the west, commercial land uses (The Palms at Indio) to the east, and the I-10 Freeway to the south. The southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 42 includes a Circle K convenience store/gas station, drive-thru restaurants, financial business, urgent care facility, and other miscellaneous commercial/retail uses. North of the Specific Plan beyond the agricultural land uses, are several residential neighborhoods including Palazzo and Sun City Shadow Hills. South of the Specific Plan beyond the I-10 Freeway includes the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel.
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land and Zoning
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1011 of 2236 The existing General Plan designation within the Specific Plan Area is Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) within the northwesterly area and Regional Commercial (RC) within the northeasterly and southerly project area. As proposed with the Oasis Specific Plan, the General Plan Land Use (Place Types) would be amended from MUN and RC to Specific Plan (SP) to establish an appropriate land use and zoning district designation that optimizes the Specific Plan Area’s potential and facilitates achievement of the Specific Plan’s goals and objectives. The existing zoning designation for the project site is Specific Plan (MU-SP), Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN), and Regional Commercial (RC). The requested zone change for the property would be to reclassify the entire site to be zoned Mixed Use Specific Plan (MUSP).
Previous Entitlements
Several Master Plan entitlements were approved within the Specific Plan Area. In 1995, the Gateway Conceptual Specific Plan (GCSP) was approved, covering over 2,700 acres and proposing a planned mixture of commercial, business, office, and residential uses in Indio. The western portion of the project site (approximately 80 acres west of the Clinton Street alignment) is located within the GCSP, designated as Mixed-Use Planning Area MU7. To implement the GCSP, the City required that each planning area have approval of one or more Project Master Plans at a more detailed level of site design. In 2007, the City of Indio approved the “Thymes Square” Project Master Plan on 63.2 acres (APN: 610-020-010) located on the southeast corner of Avenue 42 and the Thousand Palms flood control channel right-of-way. The approval authorizes the development of Mixed Use on the Gateway Conceptual Specific Plan that includes 217 Residential units (32.6 acres) on the western half of the master plan, Open Space/Recreation (5-acre public park), Commercial/Business Park development (10 acres) on the northeastern potion, and Light Industrial/Business Park development (11.1 acres) on the southeastern portion of the master plan site.
In 2008, the City of Indio approved the Clinton Freeway Business Park Project Master Plan, a 22.6- acre project (APN: 610-020-012 and 610-020-013) immediately south of the “Thymes Square” mixed-use project. Neither Project Master Plan has been implemented and both sites currently remain vacant. The 80-acre portion located within the Gateway Specific Plan shall be withdrawn prior to the adoption of The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan. At this time, the Commission is considering rescinding the existing entitlements (although the Thymes Square Project Master Plan is not in effect at this time) as the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan would replace this plan.
Specific Plan Goals and Objectives
The following Specific Plan Goals and Objectives form the physical, economic, and environmental framework upon which the Specific Plan is built.
Goal: Accommodate a range of land uses and maintain a level of variety and flexibility that will allow the plan to adjust to market conditions and meet the economic, housing, and service needs of the community.
-Provide uses that ensure long-term economic benefits and stability for the City of Indio. -Develop a diverse set of land uses that permit a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. -Implement employment-generating land uses that would create new jobs for the City of Indio. -Establish development standards and guidelines that facilitate business and employment opportunities, are adaptive to changing market conditions, and achieve local planning objectives.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1012 of 2236 Goal: Where industrial uses are near existing and planned residential development, ensure that industrial projects be designed to limit the impact of truck traffic, air, and noise pollution.
Create a high-quality development that provides industrial land use activity adjacent to I-10. -Encourage site plan designs to provide appropriate setbacks and/or design features that reduce negative impacts at the source.
-Encourage industrial land uses that accommodate buildings with loading bays that have a short direct access route to I-10 on- and off-ramps.
-Design safe and efficient vehicle access to commercial land uses from arterial streets to ensure efficient vehicular ingress and egress.
-Utilize existing designated truck routes and develop a safe and efficient system for delivering goods and services.
Goal: Ensure that development has a positive effect on the City of Indio and a high quality of life for all residents.
-Ensure development along Avenue 42 results in a connected, complete place with housing and commercial uses organized into a walkable, transit-supportive pattern of neighborhoods and centers.
-Establish development standards along Avenue 42 to include sidewalks, trees, landscape, pedestrian furniture, safe pedestrian crossings, and direct connections to the front entrances of retail and services.
-Provide landscaping that improves the streetscape experience and is supportive of the site’s character and the character of the surrounding community. -Encourage a mix of local- and regional-serving uses along Avenue 42 and Monroe Street that serve the needs of the community.
-Promote compatibility with surrounding uses through site design that provides appropriate transitions and buffer space.
Goal: Ensure the circulation network provides a safe and efficient level of connectivity for commercial and passenger vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Establish pedestrian connections between residential and retail commercial developments. -Develop sidewalks for pedestrian use where existing gaps exist. -Establish the opportunity for a Multi-Modal Transportation Network that serves all users and modes in a healthy, equitable manner.
-Encourage commercial/retail developments to have common driveways to minimize the number of curb cuts along any given block to improve pedestrian safety. -Encourage residential and non-residential developments within a ½ mile radius of existing or planned transit stops, particularly along Avenue 42, to facilitate and take advantage of transit service, reduce vehicle trips, and allow residents without private vehicles to access services.
Goal: Provide adequate infrastructure, services, and utilities to meet the needs of the community.
-Ensure adequate infrastructure and utility service levels before approving new development. -Require new development to pay their fair share for required improvements to public services and infrastructure.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1013 of 2236 -Establish appropriate land uses and development standards within the Airport Influence Area consistent with the densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions defined in the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
These goals and objectives complement the General Plan 2024 while also highlighting the purpose and key components of the proposed Specific Plan upon build-out of the project site.
Specific Plan Organization
The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan is organized into five Chapters and two appendices. The following describes each chapter and accompanying appendices:
Chapter 1 Introduction - Provides local and regional context and setting; background; authority to prepare; relationship with other plans and documents; CEQA compliance; project goals and objectives and organization of the Specific Plan.
Chapter 2 Development Plan – Explains the conceptual land use plan for the Specific Plan Area; circulation and mobility; grading; circulation, infrastructure, and public services.
Chapter 3 Development Regulations – Identifies allowable uses, development intensities, and the general development standards, parking, and other regulations for development with The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan.
Chapter 4 Objective Design Standards and Design Guidelines - Establishes design standards and guidelines for development within the Specific Plan Area, ensuring consistency with the vision and objectives of The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan.
Chapter 5 Administration and Implementation – Discusses the development review procedures applicable to the Specific Plan Area; Implementation of the proposed land uses, including Specific Plan adoption, subsequent approvals and plans, substantial conformance findings, and phasing are outlined in this chapter. Additionally, financing sources and maintenance responsibilities are identified and administrative procedures regulating modifications and amendments.
Specific Plan Land Use Concept Plan
As shown in Figure 2-1 of the Specific Plan, The Specific Plan specifies two primary land use districts: 1) Mixed-Use, which allows residential and commercial uses, and 2) Industrial. For planning purposes, the approximate 183-acre property is divided into four Planning Areas (PA) for development and an area reserved for a possible future electric substation.
Table 2‐1 in the Specific Plan provides a high-level summary of the planned land uses and permitted intensity of uses within the planning areas of the Specific Plan. Table 2-1 reflects generally applicable standards and does not describe potential buildout, is further controlled by the development maximum reflected in Table 2-2 and the land use equivalency conversion ratios identified in Specific Plan Section 5.2.9, Land Use Conversion. The applicable development standards in Specific Plan Section 3.6, Development Standards, also apply to any future development within the Specific Plan’s Planning Areas. Each Planning Area may develop a singular anticipated use or as a combination of uses identified below in a horizontal or vertical mixed‐use development. Further definition of each planning area will occur as individual developments are implemented through the Planning Review process and based on market demand.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1014 of 2236 Specific Plan Development Limit
Notwithstanding the Specific Plan’s permitted densities/intensities and development standards, the development capacity limitations below also control maximum development (buildout) within the Specific Plan. It is important to note that while the equivalency tables allow variation in intensity between uses, the maximums identified below reflect the most intensive development that could occur within the Specific Plan. Any development variants that could occur using equivalency would be consistent with and within the scope of the maximums. The “maximums” identified in Table 2-2 of the Specific Plan reflect the most intensive development that could occur within the Specific Plan.
However, the exact development may not reflect the uses developed. The square footage of commercial and non-residential uses may increase while development of residential units would decrease, for instance, consistent with the land use equivalency conversion ratios in Section 5.2.9 of the Specific Plan.
Specific Plan Planning Areas
The proposed Specific Plan contains various Planning Areas. Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately 75.1 acres in the northern and northeastern quadrant of the Specific Plan Area. As shown on Figure 2-1 in the Specific Plan, Planning Area 1 is bordered on the north by Avenue 42; on the west by the Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel; on the east by PA 2; and on the south by an internal east-west roadway (“A” Street); Planning Area 2 is bordered on the north by Avenue 42; on the east by Monroe Street; on the south by “A” Street; and on the west by PA 1; and Planning Area 3 is bordered on the north by “A” Street; on the east by Monroe Street; on the south by the I-10 on-ramp; and on the west by PA 4. Each planning area would accommodate various land uses and building sizes. For a complete discussion on these planning areas, refer to page 2-4 in the Specific Plan. Conceptual Site Plan layouts are contained in the Specific Plan and shown in Attachment 2 as well as a conceptual landscape and green space plan shown on page 2-17 of the Specific Plan.
Development Regulations
Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan establishes the use restrictions and development standards (zoning) for The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan. As part of the proposed amendments, additional land use options were added to Table 3-1 (Land Use Matrix). In addition, Table 3-3 amends development standards relating to industrial building height and setbacks along the Interstate 10, minimum landscape percentage, and larger trees planting within the freeway setback area of Planning Area 4.
The regulations provided are in concert with the guidelines set forth in Chapter 4, Objective Design Standards and Guidelines, of this Specific Plan to achieve the vision of The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan. This section outlines permitted land uses and development standards such as densities, building setbacks/heights, parking, and other standards that refer back to the Unified Development Code (City Municipal Code) as well.
Freeway-Oriented Digital Outdoor Advertising Display Standards The Specific Plan would allow a freeway-oriented digital outdoor advertising display that may be permitted on commercial or industrial designated parcels that abut Interstate 10 (I-10) within the Specific Plan Area, subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the Specific Plan. Nondigital signs (static billboards) would be prohibited. The standards for this sign type is to ensure that freeway-oriented digital outdoor advertising displays are appropriately located, designed, and operated to minimize visual, safety, and land use impacts while supporting the economic and placemaking objectives of the Specific Plan. Table 3-5 in the Specific Plan and additional standards
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1015 of 2236 that apply to this sign type can be found on pages 3-23 to 3-26. A separate review by the Planning Commission would also be required for approval of Freeway Oriented Digital Outdoor Advertising Displays at the project site.
Objective Design Standards and Guidelines
Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan establishes the framework for the physical design of development within The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan. As part of proposed amendments, the industrial design guidelines in this section were updated to promote enhanced building elevations and site design.
This chapter includes both Objective Design Standards and Design Guidelines to ensure highquality, cohesive development, while allowing appropriate variation and flexibility consistent with applicable State law. The standards and guidelines in this chapter are intended to implement the Specific Plan’s vision for a contemporary, mixed-use environment that integrates residential, commercial, and industrial uses and leverages the site’s proximity to regional transportation corridors. These standards are intended to ensure consistency with State law, including California Government Code Section 65913.4, as may be amended, and to provide an objective basis for project design and review. A separate set of landscape Objective Design Standards and Guidelinesincluded in this chapter shall apply to all development types within the Specific Plan Area, including multi-family residential, mixed-use, and industrial projects. Design Guidelinesapply to industrial development and to other projects subject to discretionary review where the application of subjective design criteria is permitted by State law. The Design Guidelines are illustrative in nature and are intended to provide general direction for achieving the design vision of the Specific Plan, while allowing flexibility and encouraging creativity.
Administration and Implementation
The purpose of this section is to outline the procedures necessary to implement The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan for the benefit of the development team, the City and other approving agencies, and interested citizens. This section establishes a clear, streamlined, and predictable review process for new development within the Specific Plan Area, with most review and approval authority delegated to the administrative level based on the objective development standards and guidelines set forth herein.
The California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 et seq.) grants authority to cities to use Specific Plans for purposes of implementing the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan establishes a set of regulations, standards, guidelines, and processes for the proposed development, and shall constitute the zoning for development within the Specific Plan Area.
Planning review is required for all projects that require a permit for new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or other exterior improvements to a structure, site, or parking area, except for:
Additions, construction, reconstruction, alterations, improvements, and landscaping for a project developed in compliance with a previously approved planning review; Replacement of exterior materials, including openings, with the same or substantially similar materials; and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1016 of 2236 Individual single-family homes and additions to single-family homes (see Section 6.04.02 (Zoning Clearance [as part of Building Plan Check).
Administrative Planning Review applies to proposed new or modified uses, activity, and/or structures that are permitted as a matter of right (“P”) or through an Administrative Use Permit (“AUP”) pursuant to Table 3-1 (Land Use Matrix) of the Specific Plan, provided the project complies with all applicable development regulations in Chapter 3 and is consistent with the intent of the Objective Design Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4. Administrative Planning Review is intended to be a ministerial process based on objective standards, regardless of the review authority.
Administrative Planning Review
The Community Development Directorshall serve as the review authority for the following projects:
Residential development projects and residential mixed-use projects with up to 100 dwelling units and not subject to the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330); Commercial development projects with a total floor area of 10,000 square feet or less; and Industrial development projects with a total floor area of 100,000 square feet or less, that comply with all applicable requirements of Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98). The Planning Commissionshall serve as the review authority for projects that exceed the thresholds listed above but otherwise qualify for Administrative Planning Review. The Director may, at their discretion, refer any Administrative Planning Review application to the Planning Commission for decision. The applicable review authority (Community Development Director or Planning Commission) shall evaluate the project for consistency with all applicable use regulations, development standards, and Objective Design Standards and Guidelines. If the review authority determines the proposed project:
1. Is permitted by right or eligible for Administrative Use Permit approval;
2. Complies with all applicable development and use standards; and
3. Is consistent with the intent of the Objective Design Standards and Guidelines; The project shall be approved, subject to conditions of approval as applicable. Staff shall prepare a Notice of Decision, including required findings and conditions of approval. The full required permit process is shown on Figure 5-1 (page 5-12) and the applicable review authority for planning entitlements are also shown in Table 5-1 (page 5-14) of the Specific Plan.
Land Use Equivalency Conversion
The amount and type of land uses within the Specific Plan Area is programmatic and is intended to be flexible, innovative, and responsive to market demand and opportunities for unique or in‐demand land uses. The mix of uses outlined in the Land Use section of the Specific Plan and is based upon anticipated demand for these uses at the time of writing. Maximum intensities of land uses may be converted at any time by the project developer, based on the conversion factors outlined in Table 5‐3, Land Use Equivalency Conversion (page 5-15). These conversion factors are based on trip generation, which allows a conversion program while keeping traffic generation stable.
Implementation of a land use conversion will be reviewed by the Community Development Director as part of the related application and allowed as part of an Administrative Planning review subject to substantial conformance with relevant development standards.
Table 5-2 in the Specific Plan depicts Floor Area reallocations between the Land Use Categories utilizing conversion factors in Table 5-3. For example: 100 multi-family residential dwelling units is
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1017 of 2236 equivalent to 12.378 ksf or 12,378 square feet of Commercial/Retail Option A use. If 12,378 square feet were constructed using the conversion factors, that would eliminate the potential for 100 dwelling units (as counted against the 3,240 dwelling unit maximum). Because the conversion factors reflect equivalent trip generation, the overall trip generation associated with the reduction in 100 dwelling units and commensurate increase in 12,378 square feet of commercial/retail uses are considered “equivalent.” There is no equivalency ratio for industrial use, and residential or commercial square footage capacity cannot be converted to additional industrial square footage.
Financing for Construction, Operations and Maintenance
A facilities financing program is critical to this Specific Plan’s implementation. The financing program ensures timely financing of public streets, utilities, and other necessary capital improvements.
Various options are available for the financing of capital improvements associated with Specific Plan development and for funding the future operations and maintenance costs of public improvements and facilities. The exact financing method will be determined in conjunction with the phasing of the improvements and facilities. Some of the possible funding mechanisms are listed in Table 5-5 (page 5-19).
The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan would implement the goals and policies of the City of Indio General Plan 2040. Future development plans or agreements, tentative tract maps, and any other development approval must be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan. Once adopted, a Specific Plan shall govern all use and development of properties within the bounds of the Specific Plan.Where a Specific Plan is silent regarding development standards, the provisions of the Unified Development Code shall govern (the Director shall have the authority to determine which provisions of this Code apply where a Specific Plan or Project Master Plan is silent). No discretionary entitlement applications or other permits may be approved, adopted, or amended within an area covered by a Specific Plan, unless found to be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Projects which are found to be consistent with the Specific Plan will be deemed consistent with the City's General Plan. Upon adoption, the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan will serve as the official zoning and development plan for the Specific Plan project area.
Market Study
Pursuant to Unified Development Code section 6.05.03.F.2.c, the Specific Plan application shall be accompanied by a market study prepared by a qualified real estate professional and/or land use economist that analyzes the "highest and best use" land use considerations for the properties being considered for the Specific Plan. The applicant submitted a project fiscal and economic impact analysis which was completed on March 22, 2024, by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc (Attachment 8). One of the components of the report estimated ongoing impacts from the project’s proposed land uses and summarized the total estimated annual ongoing impacts associated with the project’s operations for the non-residential land uses for the two land use scenarios.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on May 27, 2026. After receiving public testimony, considering the staff presentation and applicant presentation, and deliberating on the Project as presented, the Planning Commission recommended (3-2) that the City Council deny the Project as presented to the Planning Commission. On June 10, 2026, the Commission voted to deny (5-0) the project. A denial resolution (Resolution No. 2141, attached) was then prepared, findings were made to support the denial of the project and adopted by the Commission on June 10, 2026.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1018 of 2236 The Planning Commission’s recommendation not to approve the Project as presented was based, in part, on the Commission’s concern that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts (including diesel fuel emissions) and that the Project’s environmental impacts, when considered together with the scale, intensity, and location of the proposed development, did not support approval of the Project as presented. The Planning Commission also found that the scale and intensity of the proposed industrial component raised substantial land use compatibility, environmental, circulation, and community impact concerns. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed industrial development component is of a scale, height, and intensity that raises substantial concerns regarding the character of the plan area at a highly visible gateway location. All findings are summarized in Planning Commission Resolution 2141 attached to the staff report.
Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Specific Plan
Following denial of the project by the Commission, the applicant drafted minor proposed amendments to chapters 3 (Development Regulations), 4 (Objective Design Standards/Guidelines), and 5 (Administration and Implementation) of the Specific Plan in order to refine and enhance the project. Furthermore, following input received from the community, city staff, and the Planning Commission, the proposed revisions will incorporate several changes that the applicant believes will improve the Specific Plan while maintaining its fundamental vision and overall land use framework.
In summary, the proposed amendments are:
Expands the range of allowable uses within the industrial land use designation; Amends development standards by reducing the maximum building height allowed in industrial planning areas C, D, and E (reducing building heights from 70 feet to 65 feet in zone C, and a reduction from 100 feet to 65 feet in zones D & E); Increases the minimum landscape percentage (from 10% to 15%); Revises the administrative variance approval process (allowing a building height variance deviation increase of up to 5% from the applicable building height standard; Amends Objective Design Standards (for Industrial Design Guidelines) relating to architectural design to emphasize contemporary, high-quality architecture, enhanced elevations, building articulation, treatments, landscaping, and additional attention to elevations as seen from Interstate 10 and other prominent public viewpoints.
The amendments are also summarized in a memorandum attached to the staff report and prepared by BH Management (Applicant).
Staff and the City’s Attorney have reviewed these amendments and believe that the revisions, viewed as a whole, do not constitute a substantial modification requiring the project to return to the Planning Commission before proceeding to City Council. Under Government Code sections 65356 and 65453, and the corresponding provisions of the UDC, the Council may modify the project presented to the Planning Commission, where referral back to the Commission is required where the Council is considering a substantial modification that the Commission did not previously consider.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1019 of 2236 For the proposed revisions, the principal physical changes reduce the development envelope or strengthen the standards applicable to Planning Area 4. The industrial height is reduced from as much as 70/100 feet to 65 feet, the I-10 setback increases from 10 to 35 feet, industrial landscaping increases from 10% to 15%, 36-inch-box trees are required within the freeway setback, and the industrial design guidelines have been substantially strengthened to address building massing, freeway visibility, façade articulation, landscaping, and the appearance of large industrial buildings.
These changes also respond directly to issues raised during the Planning Commission proceedings and do not alter the Specific Plan boundaries, planning areas, maximum industrial square footage, floor area ratios, residential capacity, or basic land-use framework.
In addition, the applicant’s CEQA consultant, MSA consulting, has prepared a memorandum (attached) which state that the added uses in the Specific Plan (except for the Sports Entertainment Facility and Entertainment and Performance Venue uses) would not trigger the need for supplemental CEQA evaluation or recirculation of the Draft EIR. This being said, the Sports Entertainment Facility and Entertainment and Performance Venue would be considered conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area 4. These uses do not align with traditional weekday peak-hour traffic modeling and primarily attract visitors during evenings and weekends, outside the commuter peak periods that form the basis of standard CEQA traffic analysis for the project. As a result, their activity does not meaningfully influence the weekday traffic conditions that the original study evaluated or that the public typically experiences. But, future consideration of these uses would require reviewing their trip characteristics in the context of service-population-based VMT metrics rather than employee-based VMT. The City would undertake this review, as well as additional CEQA review, in connection with a future CUP associated with these uses.
Environmental Review:
The City of Indio is the “Lead Agency” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.) is responsible for preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Oasis at Indio project. Upon preliminary review, the City determined that since the project may have significant effects on the environment, a Draft EIR was prepared by MSA Consulting and circulated for public review and comment on June 25, 2024.
The DEIR was sent to the California State Clearinghouse, and the link to the document was provided to public agencies, and individuals who had expressed an interest or requested to receive the Draft EIR. In addition, a Notice of Availability was published in the Desert Sun. The Notice of Availability (NOA) and a Notice of Completion (NOC) were also sent to the Riverside County Clerk.
The NOA and NOC are included in this Final EIR as Appendix A and B. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available on the City’s website. The public comment period ended on August 9, 2024.
During the public review period, the City received a total of 157 comments in the form of letters and emails.
The EIR evaluated potential environmental impacts based on the highest development intensity associated with two land use plan scenarios with Maximum Buildout Scenario (MBS) reflecting the most intensive development as follows:
MBS: A mixed-use development of up to 3,240 multi-family residential units and 20,000 sf of commercial uses on approximately 75.1 acres within Planning Areas (PA) 1, 2, and 3; and 1,806,290 sf of light Industrial use on approximately 92.8 acres within PA 4.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1020 of 2236 Scenario #2: A mixed-use development of up to 1,237 multi-family residential units and 71,600 square feet of commercial uses including a 128-key hotel on approximately 75.1 acres within PAs 1, 2, and 3; and 1,806,290 sf of Industrial use on approximately 92.8 acres within PA 4.
The EIR also identified feasible mitigation measures and potentially feasible alternatives to address any significant and adverse impacts of the Specific Plan on the environment. The City of Indio is required, by CEQA, to certify the EIR prior to the approval of The Oasis at Indio Specific Plan.
The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR (Attached), written comments received during the public comment period, responses to those comments, and changes or errata to the Draft EIR, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines 15132. This Final EIR was prepared pursuant to Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporates the May 2024 Draft EIR by reference; comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day public comment period; written responses to comments; and corresponding revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR included the preparation of technical studies such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology, Noise, Traffic, etc.
The Draft EIR and Final EIR were both made available for public review and inspection on the City of Indio’s website: Notices / Documents | Indio, CA
The proposed revisions to the Specific Plan amend sections of the plan related to land uses and development/architectural standards and guidelines that have been reviewed and determined that no further environmental review is required for these amendments. In light of this determination, two additional land uses added to the plan are not exempt from further environmental review. These uses include sports entertainment facilities and entertainment/performance venue uses. Such uses would need further environmental review if said uses are proposed as part of future entitlements required for such projects.
Certification of the EIR
In order to certify the Final EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 prescribe that the City must find that:
a. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; and c. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgement and analysis.
If the Lead Agency certifies the Final EIR, it can then consider approving the project, in whole or in part.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project as part of the CEQA process, the lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the project’s mitigation measures, per Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. Section 15126.4(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project’s mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other mechanisms. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines further provide that the MMRP must be adopted at the time of project
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1021 of 2236 approval. The City shall remain responsible for monitoring the implementation of all of the project’s mitigation measures in accordance with the project’s MMRP.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
The project will have significant and unavoidable impacts in the following areas:
(1) The proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds for regional emissions, therefore, resulting in significant and unavoidable increases in criteria air pollutants, including nonattainment ozone precursor and PM10 pollutants, which could lead to increases in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation.
(2) The project’s mitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions for each individual construction model would be below SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds for VOC emissions; and the project would have the potential to generate daily operational emissions that could exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended regional emissions thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
(3) The project’s potential unmitigated GHG emissions efficiency for the MBS and Scenario 2 would exceed the CAP’s 2030 and 2040 GHG levels on a service population basis.
As permitted under CEQA Guidelines 15093(b) the City Council (with a recommendation by the Planning Commission) adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning these unavoidable significant impacts to explain why the project’s specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, outweigh its unavoidable impacts.
The project site provides an appropriate location for the proposed industrial use, since the site is located in proximity to the Interstate 10 freeway, which is a major transportation corridor. The residential and commercial components of the project would introduce much needed housing in the City, within walking distance to proposed commercial businesses and job opportunities. The City Council of the City of Indio finds that the project’s significant environmental impacts are acceptable when balanced with the project’s benefits. Each of the benefits cited below constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project and outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of approving the project and thus make the adverse environmental effects acceptable. Thus, even in the absence of one or more of the reasons set forth below, the City has determined that each remaining reason, or any combination of reasons, is a sufficient basis for approving the project, notwithstanding any significant and unavoidable impacts that may occur.
1. Land Use Benefits:
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1022 of 2236 The 183-acre project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project site’s location in proximity to the Interstate 10 freeway makes it an ideal location for the proposed warehouse use, since trucks accessing the site will predominantly travel along the I-10, which provides regional access to the City of Indio. The project will also provide 1,244 permanent jobs in the City. The future industrial uses will take advantage of the site’s location near I-10, and the demand for goods due to the increase of e-commerce businesses, which area is generally not considered ideal for residential development (adjacent to I-10). Development of the project proposes residential and commercial uses that are similar to the surrounding uses, creating a cohesive area focused on regional commercial uses, and residential dwelling units.
2. Meet Market Demands for Industrial Space:
The project would provide industrial space to fulfill the needs of the growing industrial sector in the area that faces a shortage of such space. The greater Southern California region is expected to continue to see strong demand for industrial facilities driven by the needs of retail and e-commerce users for facilities with modern amenities to maximize distribution efficiency.
Markets, including those in Los Angeles County, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties are running out of space to support more industrial facilities. The limited availability of industrial facilities can result in negative effects such as stock-outs, trade bottlenecks, and delays in the time it takes for goods to reach consumers. The project would provide a 1,806,290-squarefoot fulfillment center, and associated infrastructure (paved driveways and parking, landscaping, access points, retention area, and perimeter fencing). Development of the project would result in the benefit of supporting the goods movement industry in decreasing lead times for delivery of consumer products and increasing the local supply of goods for regional consumers.
3. Economic and Fiscal Benefits:
The project encourages economic growth and diversity within the City by providing a warehouse for a business wishing to invest in the City. The project would increase annual property tax revenues as improvements increase assessable value of the project site and would also generate additional revenues through the collection of certain other taxes, licenses, and fees associated with business operation. The tenant’s expenditures associated with constructing the project would also supplement the City’s General Fund as sales tax revenues are collected during the sales of construction materials. The project is expected to generate over $3.2 million to $5.8 million in annual taxes during its first year of The project would support temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,244 permanent jobs during operation. The generation of these jobs would result in indirect economic benefits as wages associated with these jobs translate to regional economic growth by local spending, as well as indirect fiscal benefits when wages are spent on goods and services, which generates sales tax revenues for the General Fund.
4. Public Infrastructure Benefits:
The project would add and improve public infrastructure in the area. The project includes street improvements along the frontages of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street. Additional traffic improvements include traffic signals and bike lanes. The project will construct the traffic signal prior to project implementation or pay its fair share cost to fund future improvements.
The provision of these roadway infrastructure improvements would provide a benefit to the City by facilitating access within the project area and increasing the reliability of current roadway systems.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1023 of 2236
5. Benefits of Sustainable Design:
The project would stimulate regional economic growth while also incorporating a number of project design features to promote environmental sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change (see Section 4.3, Air Quality, 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 4.6, Energy Resources, of the EIR). The project’s building will be designed to comply with Title 24 CalGreen requirements in order to conserve resources, including energy and water. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards also require the installation of bicycle parking, EV charging stations, and water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. The project will also install photovoltaic panels to produce 30 percent of project power. The project will also include sidewalk connections to promote walking, and bicycle, clean vehicle parking to encourage alternative transportation.
The project will also install water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings and landscape design.
6. Fiscal Benefits
As documented in the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) dated March 22, 2024, build out of the project scenarios is estimated to yield a net fiscal surplus for the City’s General Fund between approximately $860,000 and $1.2 million annually. The project is estimated to generate approximately $3.2 million to $5.8 million in General Fund revenues annually and requires approximately $2.3 million to $4.6 million annually in General Fund expenditures to provide municipal services to the project and its residents and employees. At buildout, the project is anticipated to generate between $147 million and $159 million in total economic activity in the City.
7. Employment/Economic Benefits
The project will contribute to both temporary and permanent employment and economic growth opportunities in this portion of the City, which provides a significant public benefit to the City and its residents. The project would result in direct employment-based population growth from the proposed mix of employment generating land uses, including commercial and warehouse uses. Project buildout has the potential to create approximately 1,244 parttime and full-time jobs. Businesses tax generated from the project provides funds for the City to support City-wide improvements, which benefit the residents of the City.
8. Infrastructure Benefits
In addition to generating a recurring fiscal benefit to the City’s General Fund, the project will contribute towards the funding of future infrastructure and public infrastructure improvements within the City and surrounding area in the amount of $2,301,300 to $4,648,300, including DIF fee contributions for improvements to the local and regional circulation system through the payment of TUMF and DIF fees, and fair share contributions to multiple signalization projects required as part of General Plan build out.
9. Payment of Impact Fees
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1024 of 2236 The project will pay substantial City Development Impact Fees and Quimby Act fees. The implementation of this measure is assured and enforceable because it is included in the conditions of approval for the project.
In light of the foregoing, and the information contained within the Final EIR and other portions of the project record of proceedings, the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council that implementation of the project will result in the development of a unique project that provides substantial economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, as outlined above, which outweigh and make acceptable the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Findings Regarding Certification of Final EIR
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, if the City Council moves to approve the project, the City Council as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the FEIR and therefore is required to make the following findings:
The FEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; The FEIR was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the project; The certification of the FEIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the City Council’s and the City’s independent judgment and analysis in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency for the project;
The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts of the project to the extent feasible; The City Council finds that the FEIR properly evaluated the project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts based on General Plan buildout, and that this analysis included all past, present and probable future projects in the project vicinity that could cause or contribute to such significant cumulative effects; and
The City Council finds that the additional information and evidence submitted after release of the DEIR and prior to certification of the FEIR, including responses to comments on the DEIR does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, but rather, merely clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the DEIR.
By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the FEIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, as well as the project design features identified in the DEIR, are hereby approved and adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as well as permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
Any finding required to be made by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1025 of 2236 findings fail to cross reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the FEIR, shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings. If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
Public Outreach
The Oasis at Indio applicant team has undertaken a multi-year community outreach and stakeholder engagement effort which began in 2023 and has continued throughout the entitlement process. The applicant’s outreach strategy has focused on transparency, accessibility, responsiveness, and ongoing dialogue with residents, neighborhood organizations, business leaders, public agencies, community stakeholders, and the City of Indio.
Outreach efforts have occurred during multiple phases of the project’s evolution and prior to formal public hearings in order to provide opportunities for early community awareness and dialogue. The applicant retained consultant CV Strategies in February 2024 to lead community outreach and engagement efforts, and their team has implemented a comprehensive communications and stakeholder engagement program.
The development team has hosted multiple community meetings and open houses have been attended by hundreds of residents and stakeholders. These meetings have included participation from the developer, planning consultants, environmental consultants, traffic engineers, legal counsel, and community engagement professionals to ensure community members had direct access to project information and subject matter experts. The applicant’s team has remained committed to continued communication and engagement throughout the public review and development process. Comments received after the circulation of the Draft EIR are attached and the full summary of public outreach and engagement completed by the applicant is also attached to the staff report.
Public Hearing Notice:
A public hearing notice for the Project was published in the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record, and also project notices were posted on-site on August 27, 2026. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a radius of 1,000-feet of the subject property on August 28, 2026, which exceeds the 500-foot radius as required in Section 159.905 of the City of Indio Municipal Code.
Financial Tentative Parcel Map
The Oasis project proposes a financial and conveyance map which is a specialized subdivision map used to facilitate property financing and the transfer of portions of land for development purposes. A financial map is a tool used by developers to secure financing for a development project before the final subdivision map is completed. It allows developers to phase projects, isolate specific parcels, or demonstrate the configuration of lots to lenders, making it easier to obtain loans or investment for construction or development incentives. The map does not create legal building sites on its own and does not override any conditions of approval from future site plan or design reviews.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1026 of 2236 Tract No. 38799 includes the subdivision of one parcel totaling approximately 185.8 gross acres (net developable area of 181.0 acres), into 4 lots for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes.
Approximately 4.8 acres would include a public right-of-way dedication along Avenue 42 and Monroe Street. The proposed lot sizes and proposed uses (as outlined in the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan) of each lot are shown below:
Lot No. Proposed Parcel Size
(Acres) Existing Use Proposed Use
Lot 1 66.6 Vacant Residential
Lot 2 4.6 Vacant Commercial
Lot 3 10.1 Vacant Commercial
Lot 4 99.7 Vacant Industrial
N/A 4.8 Vacant Right-of-Way
Dedication
As mentioned, the proposed finance map would not create legal buildable lots and a standard Tentative Map would be required to be submitted at a later date to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Oasis Development Agreement
A development agreement may be considered for a proposed development that will require a developer to make a substantial investment at the early stages of the project for planning and engineering for the entire project and for public facilities and services.
An application for a Development Agreement can be made and considered simultaneously with the review of other necessary applications, including, but not limited to Development Code text amendments, rezoning, Planned Development permits, and Conditional Use Permits. A Development Agreement is not a substitute for, nor an alternative to, any other required permit or approval, and the qualified applicant or developer must comply with all other required procedures for development approval.
Unified Development Code section 6.05.02 establishes procedures and requirements for considering and entering into legally binding agreements with applicants for development projects, as provided for in State law.
Such agreements provide a greater degree of certainty than the normal permit approval process by granting assurance that an applicant may proceed with development in accord with policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of the approval, subject to conditions to promote the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved.
A development agreement locks in zoning rules for large projects while delivering public benefits.
Standards adopted as part of any development agreement or specific plan shall control over any conflicting code requirements adopted subsequent to the development agreement or specific plan (pursuant to UDC section 1.01.06.F). A development agreement is also a binding contract between a local government and a property owner or developer that locks in the zoning rules, density limits, and other regulations that will apply to a project for a set number of years (in this case, 20 years, with two 5-year extensions allowed). Section 6.05.02 of the UDC establishes procedures and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1027 of 2236 requirements for considering and entering into legally binding agreements with applicants for development projects, as provided for in State law. Such agreements provide a greater degree of certainty than the normal permit approval process by granting assurance that an applicant may proceed with development in accordance with policies, rules, and regulations in effect at the time of the approval, subject to conditions to promote the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved. A developer will typically agree to deliver public benefits which the community could not otherwise require through standard permitting.
For the Oasis Specific Plan project, the developer/applicant, BH properties, has agreed to provide the following public benefits:
Affordable Housing. Developer will reserve 5% Project’s “base density” units for “moderate income” households (those households earning 80-120% of Area Median Income). The term “base density” means the units proposed, excluding any density bonus unit added pursuant to the Density Bonus Law.
Contribution to Monroe Street/Interstate 10 Interchange. Developer will pay to City a monetary contribution towards the Monroe Street/Interstate 10 Interchange Improvement Project (“Interchange Project”) not to exceed $3,500,000 (“Developer’s Interchange Project Contribution”). Developer’s Interchange Project Contribution shall be paid in three phases, as follows: (a) 50% upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement or when the Interchange Project construction contract is awarded, whichever is later; (b) 25% upon issuance of the first building permit in furtherance of the Project; and (c) 25% upon issuance of the Project’s first certificate of occupancy. The Parties expressly acknowledge that Developer’s Interchange Project Contribution shall be Developer’s sole and exclusive obligation with respect to the Interchange Project.
City/County of Riverside Easement Payment. The City and/or County of Riverside will pay to Developer the appraised fair market value for any road right-of-way easement, slope and drainage easement, and temporary construction easement required for the Interchange Project.
City Drainage Easement. The drainage easement granted by Developer to City, pursuant to Section 2(a), above (“Drainage Easement”), for which payment is required, shall allow for surface rights and uses consistent with the Project (such as parking and landscaping improvements). To the maximum extent practical, the City shall cooperate to allow site planning to keep the Drainage Easement within parking areas to avoid curb and gutter impacts. The City acknowledges that Planning Area 3 of the Project may be allowed to reduce landscape requirements to achieve these results. The end user of the surface rights associated with the project shall be responsible for replacing or restoring any surface improvements if the City needs to perform repairs or upgrades to the storm drain line and its components within the Drainage Easement.
Parkland. Developer will dedicate an approximately three (3) acre park (“Park”) located at the westerly edge of the Property, adjacent to Thousand Palms Stormwater Channel. The City will credit Developer for the appraised value of the Park dedication against the Project’s park fee obligation under the Indio Municipal Code or Indio Development Code.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1028 of 2236 Public Safety Contribution. Developer will reserve a facility space (ranging from 1,000 – 1,500 square feet) for a potential police substation within any future inline retail space, if and when built. Any such space shall be a basic shell, without any tenant improvements (which shall entirely be the obligation of the City). The developer will also, independent of the substation obligation, annex into and contribute to the Indio Public Safety Community Facilities District. Potential Medical Clinic. The developer shall use all best practices and commercially reasonable marketing efforts to identify, secure, and retain a qualified tenant for a medical clinic facility located within the Project. Developer’s efforts shall include, but not be limited to, targeted marketing campaigns, listing the property on appropriate commercial real estate platforms, leveraging industry and medical sector contacts, conducting site tours, negotiating lease terms consistent with market standards, and coordinating with local brokers and medical associations. Developer shall also proactively engage in tenant retention strategies, including regular communication, resolution of tenant concerns, and period lease reviews to encourage long-term occupancy of any medical clinic facility. Annual Job Fair. The developer shall host an annual job fair when the first employer is onsite and advertise at local colleges with the goal of hiring no less than 10% of City of Indio residents.
Indio Address. Developer will use commercially reasonable efforts to designate a City of Indio address for all major purchases/procurement related to the development of the Project. This obligation shall not be assigned to buyers, tenants, users, or other successors or assignees.
Public notice of hearings for the Development Agreement were completed as specified in Section
6.03.08 (Public Notice) and a notice of hearing was also mailed or delivered to any other local agency expected to provide essential facilities or services to the property that is the subject of the Development Agreement. In turn, notices were mailed to agencies on May 13, 2026.
General Plan 2040 Consistency:
The Specific Plan goals and objectives as described in the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan are consistent with the City’s General Plan 2040 goals, policies, vision, and applicable implementation programs by providing a site suitable for a master planned mixed-use development with various land use types, uses and community benefits as described in this report including required findings pursuant to Indio Unified Development Code section 6.05.03.I.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Current FY Financial
Impact:
In current year budget: N/A
Current FY General
Fund Impact:
Budget adjustment: N/A
Next FY Financial
Impact:
Strategic Objective: Economic Opportunity
Source of funds: Fund-Org-Object
Reference:
ATTACHMENTS:
99 IND - Oasis Denial Resolution RESO 10610
00 IND - Oasis EIR Approval RESO 10611
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1029 of 2236 Exhibit A CEQA Findings
Exhibit B SOOC
Exhibit C MMRP
01 IND - Oasis GPA Approval RESO 10612
Exhibit A GP Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit B Mobility Circulation Map Amendment
02 IND - Oasis SPA Approval ORD 1845
Exhibit A Oasis Specific Plan w Revisions
Exhibit B Specific Plan Findings
03 IND - Oasis ZMA Approval ORD 1846
Exhibit A Zone Map Change
04 IND - Oasis DA Approval ORD 1847
Exhibit A Development Agreement
05 IND - Oasis Map Approval RESO 10613
Exhibit A TPM 38799 Finance Map
Project Vicinity Map
Conceptual Site Plans
Summary of Amendments to Specific Plan
Oasis_Specific_Plan_TrackChange_September-01-2026
CEQA Memo
Traffic Memo
Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis
Resolution 2141 PC Denial
Oasis Community Outreach Summary
Oasis - Public Comments Received
APPROVAL(S):
Ruby D. Walla, Director of Finance Approved - 09 Sep 2026 Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney Approved - 11 Sep 2026 Jonathan Nicks, City Manager Approved - 11 Sep 2026
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1030 of 2236
RESOLUTION NO. 10610
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE OASIS AT INDIO
PROJECT AND ALL RELATED ENTITLEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Indio (“City”) is a general law city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Oasis at Indio Project is a proposed mixed-use development project proposed by BH Indio Land, LLC (“Applicant”) encompassing approximately 183 acres generally located at the southwest corner of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street and north of Interstate 10, presently designated Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) and Regional Commercial (RC) under the General Plan 2040 and zoned Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN), Regional Commercial (RC), and Specific Plan (MU-SP), consisting of various requested discretionary entitlements to be considered by the City Council, including: (1) certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH No. 2024050578), adoption of CEQA findings, adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, and approval of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; (2) General Plan Amendments (GP 23-0001 and GP 26-0005); (3) rescission of the Gateway Specific Plan and Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan, and adoption of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan (SP-23-0001); (4) Zone Map Amendment (ZMA-23-0001); (5) Development Agreement (DA-23-0001); and (6) Financing Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799 (PLAN-TPM-23-0001) (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project as presented to the City Council includes residential, commercial, industrial, and related mixed-use development, and would permit at maximum buildout up to 3,240 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, and 1,806,290 square feet of industrial uses, the entire industrial component being located within Planning Area 4 (approximately 92.8 acres) at the Interstate 10 and Monroe Street gateway to the City; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Project was published in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based is located at the City of Indio, Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Mall, Indio, California 92201, which department is the custodian of those documents and materials; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, and June 10, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, the related staff report, the Final EIR, written and oral public comments, applicant materials and presentations, and all other documents and testimony submitted to the Planning Commission; and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1031 of 2236
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, considering the staff presentation and applicant presentation, and deliberating on the Project as presented, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the Project as presented to the Planning Commission, and recommended that the City Council not certify the Final EIR and not adopt a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory to the City Council, and the City Council has exercised its own independent review and judgment with respect to the Project and each of the discretionary entitlements comprising it; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2026, the Applicant submitted revisions to the proposed Oasis at Indio Specific Plan that proposed the addition of fourteen permitted and conditionally permitted land uses to Specific Plan Table 3-1, including aerospace manufacturing, a sports entertainment facility, and an entertainment and performance venue; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024050578) were prepared for the Project, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR, its technical appendices and supporting studies, the written comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to those comments, as evidence within the record of proceedings; and
WHEREAS, because the City Council denies the Project, the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to this action (CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a) “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves”; Pub.
Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5)); and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15042 provides that a public agency may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment, and that a lead agency has broader authority to disapprove a project than does a responsible agency; and
WHEREAS, to the extent the industrial component of the Project constitutes a “logistics use development” within the meaning of Government Code section 65098, Government Code section 65098.5, subdivision (c)(1), expressly preserves the authority of a city to “[d]eny a logistics use development altogether”; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendments, the Specific Plan, the Zone Map Amendment, and the Development Agreement are legislative acts committed to the discretion of the City Council, no applicant possesses a right to compel their adoption, and no findings are required by law in order to deny them; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly advertised public hearing, reviewed staff reports, received and considered the Final EIR and the entire record of proceedings, received the staff presentation, the Applicant’s
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1032 of 2236
presentation, and public testimony, considered testimony related to the proposed project, and concluded its proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council.
Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. Because the City Council denies the Project, CEQA does not apply to this action. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15270, subd. (a); Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(5).) The City Council accordingly makes no certification of the Final EIR, adopts no findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, adopts no statement of overriding considerations, and approves no mitigation monitoring and reporting program. No notice of determination and no notice of exemption are required, and none shall be filed. In reaching the determinations set forth below, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR and its technical appendices, as evidence, and exercises the authority recognized in CEQA Guidelines section 15042.
Section 3. Denial of General Plan Amendments GP 23-0001 and GP 26-0005. The City Council hereby DENIES General Plan Land Use Map Amendment GP 23-0001 and General Plan Mobility Element Circulation Map Amendment GP 26-0005. The decision whether to amend the General Plan is a legislative act committed to the discretion of the City Council, and no findings are required in order to deny it. The City Council nevertheless states, for the record, that it is unable to determine that the proposed amendments satisfy the criteria in Unified Development Code section 6.06.01(H), and further finds and determines:
(a) The proposed amendment would not maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City (UDC § 6.06.01(H)(3));
(b) The proposed amendment is not compatible with existing or proposed uses in the area (UDC § 6.06.01(H)(4));
(c) The subject parcels are not physically suitable for the requested land use designation (UDC § 6.06.01(H)(5));
(d) The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare (UDC § 6.06.01(H)(6)); and, (e) The proposed Mobility Element Circulation Map amendment deleting Clinton Street south of Avenue 42 is not warranted, in that it would remove a planned circulation connection from the adopted Circulation Plan in service of a development program the City Council declines to approve.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1033 of 2236
Section 4. Denial of Specific Plan SP 23-0001; Existing Plans Not Rescinded. The City Council hereby DENIES the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan (SP 23-0001) and does not adopt the ordinance rescinding the Gateway Specific Plan or the Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan, each of which remains in full force and effect.
Unified Development Code section 6.05.03(I) provides that the City Council “shall make the following findings for the approval of a Specific Plan,” and approval requires that each of them be made. The City Council is unable to make the findings required by subsections (I)(2), (I)(4), (I)(8), (I)(10), and (I)(14), and affirmatively finds and determines:
(a) The proposed Specific Plan would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City (UDC § 6.05.03(I)(2)); (b) The Specific Plan does not provide for community benefits beyond those normally required under existing development regulations (UDC § 6.05.03(I)(4)); (c) The Specific Plan does not prescribe reasonable controls and standards for the affected land uses sufficient to ensure compatibility with, and the integrity of, other established uses (UDC § 6.05.03(I)(8));
(d) The Specific Plan does not ensure development of a desirable character that would be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood (UDC § 6.05.03(I)(10)); and
(e) The Specific Plan is not the highest and best use of the land relative to the requested change in allowable land uses, development intensity and density, and development standards, as compared against the current zoning (UDC §
6.05.03(I)(14)).
Section 5. Denial of Zone Map Amendment ZMA 23-0001. The City Council hereby DENIES Zone Map Amendment ZMA 23-0001 and does not adopt the ordinance approving it. This is a legislative act for which no findings are required. The City Council nevertheless finds and determines:
(a) The proposed amendment is not consistent with the General Plan (UDC §
6.06.01(I)(1)). The requested Mixed Use Specific Plan designation is premised upon adoption of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment GP 23-0001, neither of which is adopted. With the General Plan 2040 land use designations unchanged, application of a Mixed Use Specific Plan zoning designation to the Project site would not be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, contrary to Government Code section 65860; (b) The proposed amendment would not promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner or promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare (UDC § 6.06.01(I)(4)); and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1034 of 2236
(c) The existing Mixed Use Neighborhood, Regional Commercial, and Specific Plan (MU-SP) zoning designations applicable to the Project site remain in effect and are not modified by this Resolution.
Section 6. Denial of Development Agreement DA 23-0001. The City Council hereby DENIES Development Agreement DA 23-0001 and does not adopt the ordinance approving it. Government Code section 65867.5, subdivision (b), provides that a development agreement “shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.” The City Council is unable to make that finding, and further finds and determines:
(a) The proposed Development Agreement and its provisions are not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan or any applicable specific plan (Gov. Code, § 65867.5, subd. (b); UDC §
6.05.02(G)(1)), in that its provisions are expressly premised upon the concurrent adoption of GP 23-0001, GP 26-0005, SP 23-0001, and ZMA 23-0001, none of which is adopted;
(b) The public benefits proposed in the Development Agreement are not sufficient to justify the long-term vesting of development rights contemplated by the Agreement, particularly given the scale and intensity of the proposed industrial component; and
(c) A development agreement is a voluntary agreement between the City and a property owner, and nothing in the Development Agreement Statute (Gov. Code, § 65864 et seq.) or in Unified Development Code section 6.05.02 obligates the City to enter into one.
Section 7. Denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799. The City Council hereby DENIES Finance Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799. Government Code section 66473.5 provides that no local agency shall approve a tentative map unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan, and Government Code section 66474 provides that a legislative body “shall deny approval of a tentative map … if it makes any of the following findings.” Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2, subdivision (a), the City Council applies the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect on the date the application was determined to be complete, which are the same designations in effect on the date of this Resolution. The City Council finds and determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record:
(a) The City Council is unable to find, as Government Code section 66473.5 requires as a condition of approval, that the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan or with any applicable specific plan. Consistency under that section is measured against a plan the City “has officially adopted.” The four parcels created by the map are configured to
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1035 of 2236
correspond to Planning Areas 1 through 4 of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan, which the City Council does not adopt. The plans and designations that remain officially adopted and applicable to the site are the Mixed Use Neighborhood and Regional Commercial General Plan designations, the Mixed Use Neighborhood, Regional Commercial, and Specific Plan (MU-SP) zoning designations, and the Gateway Specific Plan and Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan, and the City Council cannot find the proposed subdivision consistent with them.
(b) The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans (Gov. Code, § 66474, subd. (b)). The design of the map and the improvements associated with it are predicated upon the internal circulation network of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan, including the internal roadway designated “Street A” and modification of the traffic signal at Monroe Street and Street A, and upon deletion of Clinton Street south of Avenue 42 as proposed by GP 26-0005.
GP 26-0005 having been denied, Clinton Street south of Avenue 42 remains a planned circulation facility on the adopted General Plan Mobility Element Circulation Plan, and the proposed subdivision does not provide for it.
Section 8. Independent and Severable Grounds; Legislative Discretion. The denial of the General Plan Amendments, the Specific Plan, the Zone Map Amendment, and the Development Agreement rests independently upon the City Council’s legislative discretion to decline to amend its General Plan and to decline to adopt new land use regulations, for which no findings are required by law. Each finding set forth in Sections 3 through 7 constitutes a separate and independent ground for the denial to which it relates. If any one or more findings is determined to be unsupported, inadequate, or invalid, the City Council’s denial stands upon each remaining finding and upon the exercise of legislative discretion stated in this Section, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution upon each remaining ground standing alone.
Section 9. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and their application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each remaining provision irrespective of the invalidity of any other.
Section 10. No Effect on Existing Land Use Regulations. Nothing in this Resolution amends, rescinds, or reduces the intensity of any General Plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning designation applicable to the Project site.
The General Plan 2040 designations, the zoning of the Project site, the Gateway Specific Plan, and the Clinton Street Business Park Project Master Plan each remain in full force and effect as they existed immediately before the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1036 of 2236
Section 12. Certification; Limitations Period. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall enter it into the book of original resolutions of the City. Any action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul this Resolution or any of the determinations made in it must be commenced, and service must be made, within the time limits prescribed by Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1), and, as to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799, within the time limits prescribed by Government Code section 66499.37.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
ELAINE HOLMES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SABDI SANCHEZ, DIRECTOR OF CITY CLERK SERVICES
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1037 of 2236
RESOLUTION NO. 10611
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE OASIS AT INDIO PROJECT AND ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Indio (“City”) is a general law city; and WHEREAS, the Oasis at Indio is a comprehensive mixed-use development Project, encompassing approximately 183 acres at the southwest corner of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project entails General Plan Amendments GP-23-0001 and GP-26- 0005, Zone Map Amendment ZMA-23-0001, Specific Plan SP-23-0001, Development Agreement DA-23-0001, and Financing Tentative Parcel Map No. 38799 (PLAN-TPM23-0001), together with circulation, utilities, open space and related improvements; the development envelope and authorized uses are those in the final Specific Plan identified in the Project approval documents; and
WHEREAS, the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan will govern the allowed land uses and development components including development limits, circulation/mobility, grading, landscaping, infrastructure/utilities, public services, development regulations, design standards/guidelines, administration and implementation and other planning and design components for development of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2024050578, consisting of the Draft EIR and appendices, responses to comments, revisions and errata, and other components of the Final EIR identified in the record; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an EIR should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR describes an initial Notice of Preparation review period from September 19 through October 19, 2023, and the State Clearinghouse records a subsequent Notice of Preparation review period from May 13 through June 11, 2024; and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1038 of 2236
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, the City solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on October 12, 2023, to familiarize the public with the Project and the environmental review process and receive input as to the scope of the Draft EIR and issues of community concern; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was released for public review beginning June 25, 2024, and the State Clearinghouse records receipt on June 26, 2024, with the review period ending August 9, 2024; the City provided the notices and opportunities for review required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing for the Project including the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations were published as required by law; and WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were provided to interested public agencies, organizations and individuals; and
WHEREAS, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in the City Clerk’s office, at the City of Indio’s public library, and posted the Draft EIR on the City's Internet website; and WHEREAS, during the required comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR includes written responses to comments raising significant environmental issues, and the City provided proposed written responses to each commenting public agency at least 10 days before certification as required by Public Resources Code section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b); and WHEREAS, after circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicant proposed revisions to the Specific Plan, including allowed uses and industrial development standards, and the Council has considered the final revisions and the supporting environmental analysis in determining whether recirculation is required; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires written findings addressing significant effects, adoption of enforceable feasible mitigation, consideration of project alternatives, and a supported Statement of Overriding Considerations before approval of a project with significant unavoidable effects; certification of an EIR alone does not authorize the Project; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, and June 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held public hearings, considered the Project and environmental materials, and recommended
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1039 of 2236
denial; the City Council has independently considered that advisory recommendation and the evidence supporting and opposing the Project; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, considered the EIR and the full record, including the Planning Commission recommendation and public comments, and exercised its independent judgment in taking the actions set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals and Identification of the EIR. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council. The Final EIR certified by this resolution consists of the June 2024 Draft EIR and technical appendices, the Final EIR, and the responses, revisions and errata specifically identified in the document index presented to the Council. The record also includes the proposed final Specific Plan, other application materials, staff reports, hearing testimony and recordings, notices, public comments, and supplemental technical materials received before the decision. The Community Development Director and City Clerk are the custodians of the record, maintained at Indio City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Indio, California 92201.
Section 2. Certification. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090, the City Council certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the Council was presented with, reviewed, and considered its information before approving the Project, and that the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The Council has considered the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the evidence both supporting and opposing certification.
Section 3. Post-Circulation Information. The Council has reviewed the revisions to the Project and the information received following circulation of the Draft EIR. The determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 is based on the final proposal and technical evidence, including the memorandum dated September 8, 2026, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc., which concluded that, “…the permitted uses under consideration would not trigger supplemental CEQA evaluation or recirculation of the Draft EIR. Their environmental effects would be adequately covered by the EIR’s analysis of light-industrial development and its associated trip patterns, VMT characteristics, operational and land disturbance assumptions.” Section 4. Findings on Significant Effects and Alternatives. The Council adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A, which identify each significant effect, the applicable finding under Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the supporting rationale, and the evidence relied upon. The Council requires all feasible mitigation identified in those findings and expressly adopted by this resolution. The Council’s reasons for rejecting each identified alternative or additional mitigation measure are those specifically stated and supported in Exhibit A. Failure of
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1040 of 2236
an alternative to eliminate every significant effect or to achieve every Project objective does not, standing alone, establish infeasibility. No finding is deemed made solely by a general incorporation of the EIR.
Section 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations. After adopting the findings in Exhibit A, the Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B. The Council has weighed the specific Project benefits established in that exhibit against the significant unavoidable air-quality and greenhouse-gas effects identified in the Final EIR and accepts those residual effects for the reasons stated in Exhibit B.
Section 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Council adopts the MMRP attached as Exhibit C. Each mitigation obligation is hereby incorporated into the applicable approvals and implemented by the responsible party at the specified time.
The Community Development Director shall coordinate monitoring with the responsible departments and agencies, maintain compliance records, and withhold affected permits or approvals when required mitigation has not been satisfied. Administrative implementation may not delete a mitigation obligation or substitute a materially different measure without the legally required review and approval. Project design features relied upon to reach an environmental conclusion shall be identified in the adopted MMRP or other enforceable approval requirements. The approved text and implementation requirements shall control over inconsistent conceptual illustrations.
Section 7. Relationship to Project Approvals. This resolution certifies the EIR and adopts the specified environmental findings and mitigation program before the City takes action on the separate entitlement instruments. It does not itself approve the General Plan amendments, Specific Plan, zoning amendment, Development Agreement, financing map, construction, or a particular tenant or operational use. Later Project decisions remain subject to applicable CEQA review, including CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 through 15164 and, where applicable, section 15168. No blanket exemption for future development is granted.
Section 8. Notice of Determination and Certification. Following a final decision to approve the Project, the Community Development Director shall file the notice of determination within five working days with the Riverside County Clerk and electronically with the State Clearinghouse, in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21152. The notice shall accurately describe the approved Project, identify the EIR, findings, MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and specify where the Final EIR and approval record are available. The applicant shall pay applicable filing fees as required by law. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of this resolution and retain its complete exhibits. The resolution takes effect upon adoption. Any judicial determination affecting this resolution or the Project approvals shall be implemented according to applicable law; this resolution does not authorize development in disregard of an invalidated finding or required mitigation.
///
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1041 of 2236
///
RESOLUTION NO. 10611
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE OASIS AT INDIO PROJECT AND ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_______________________________
ELAINE HOLMES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SABDI SANCHEZ, DIRECTOR OF CITY CLERK SERVICES
Exhibit A — CEQA Findings of Fact
Exhibit B — Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1042 of 2236 Exhibit A
CEQA FINDINGS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF INDIO
for the
THE OASIS AT INDIO PROJECT
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1043 of 2236 i
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. & State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 et seq.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................3 III. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS..............................................................................................4 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ..............4 A. AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................5 i. Conflict with an Applicable Air Quality Plan..............................................5
1. Mitigation Measures: .......................................................................5
2. Finding Related to the Conflict with an Applicable Air Quality Plan ................................................................................................10 ii. Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant .....................................................................................................11
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................12
2. Finding Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant............................................................................18 B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................................21 i. Generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment ........................21
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................21
2. Finding Related to Significant and Unavoidable Increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................22 V. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITGATION INCORPORATED ...............................................24 A. AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................24 i. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations........24
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................25
2. Finding Related to the Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations .............................................26 B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................................................................28 i. Substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1044 of 2236 ii
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ...................................................................................................28
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................29
2. Finding Related to Substantial Effect on Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive or Special Status Species in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS ..........................................................................................31 ii. Substantial Adverse Effects on the Movement of Any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species, or Migratory Wildlife Corridors ......32
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................33
2. Finding Related to Impacts to Movement of Wildlife Species or Wildlife Corridors..........................................................................34 iii. Conflict With Any Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Such As A Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance, or Conflict With The Provisions of An Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan ................................................................35
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................35
2. Finding Regarding Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, or Habitat Conservation Plan, or Natural Community Conservation Plan......................................................35 C. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................36 i. Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource........36
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................36
2. Finding Related to Adverse Changes of a Significant
Archaeological Resource ...............................................................37 ii. Disturb any Human Remains.....................................................................38
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................38
2. Finding Related to Human Remains..............................................39 D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .....................................................................................40 i. Directly or Indirectly Cause Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Strong Seismic Ground Shaking40
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................40
2. Finding Related to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking .....................41 ii. Result in Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction..........42
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................43
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1045 of 2236 iii
2. Finding Related to Seismic Related Ground Failure .....................44 iii. Result in Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil..................................................45
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................45
2. Finding Related to Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ......................45 iv. Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit Resulting in Potential for On-Site or Off-site Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse .......46
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................46
2. Finding Regarding On-Site or Off-site Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse............................................48 v. Located on Expansive Soil.........................................................................48
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................49
2. Finding Regarding Expansive Soils...............................................50 vi. Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature........................................................................................................51
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................51
2. Finding Regarding Paleontological Resources ..............................52 E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................................52 i. Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases........................52
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................52
2. Finding Related to Conflicts with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation Adopted to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........53 F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................55 i. Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment Due to Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, or Release Hazardous Materials into the Environment ...............................................55
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................55
2. Finding Related to the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, or Release Hazardous Materials .................56 G. NOISE....................................................................................................................59 i. Generate 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...........................................................................................59
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................60
2. Finding Regarding the Increase in Noise.......................................65
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1046 of 2236 iv
ii. Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levles70
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................71
2. Finding Regarding Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise71 H. TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................73 i. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (VMT)........................................................................................................73
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................73
2. Finding Regarding the Consistency with CEQA Section
15064.3(b) (VMT) .........................................................................74 I. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................75 i. Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources......................................75
1. Mitigation Measures: .....................................................................75
2. Finding Regarding Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources .............76 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ..................................................................................................................77 A. AESTHETICS........................................................................................................77 i. Effects on a Scenic Vista ...........................................................................77
1. Finding Regarding Scenic Vistas...................................................78 ii. Substantially Damage Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor......................................................................................................80
1. Finding Regarding Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway.........................................................................................80 i. Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and its Surroundings, or if the Project is in an Urbanized Area, Would the Project Conflict with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality......................................................81
1. Finding Regarding Confliction with Applicable Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality..........................................81 ii. Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare...................................82
1. Finding Regarding Substantial Light or Glare...............................82 B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .........................................84 i. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland); or Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland, to Non-Agricultural Use ...................................84
1. Findings Regarding Converting Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use84
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1047 of 2236 v
ii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use, or a Williamson Act Contract......................................................................................................85
1. Findings Regarding Agricultural Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract..........................................................................................85 iii. Conflict with Existing Zoning for, or Cause Rezoning of, Forest Land, Timberland or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production or Result in Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use.....86
1. Findings Regarding Rezoning, Conversion, or Loss of Forest Land, Timberland or Timberland Zoned Timberland Production to NonForest Use ......................................................................................86 C. AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................86 i. Result in Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People ................................................86
1. Findings Regarding Other Emissions Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People .......................................................87 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................88 i. Historical Resources ..................................................................................88
1. Findings Regarding the Project’s Impact to Historical Resources 89 Facts in Support of Finding: ..................................................................................89 E. ENERGY ...............................................................................................................89 i. Result in Significant Environmental Impact Due to Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources..................................89
1. Findings Regarding the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources................................................90 ii. Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency...................................................................................................93
1. Findings Regarding Consistency with State or Local Plans for Renewable or Efficient Energy......................................................93 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................95 i. Result in Landslides...................................................................................95
1. Finding Regarding Landslides .......................................................95 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................95 i. Be Located on a Site Which is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ..............95
1. Findings Regarding Listed on a Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled List.................................................................................95 ii. Effect an Emergency Response Plan .........................................................96
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1048 of 2236 vi
1. Findings Regarding an Emergency Response Plan .......................97 iii. Expose People or Structures to Wildland Fires .........................................98
1. Findings Regarding Exposing People or Structures to Wildland Fires................................................................................................98 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...........................................................99 i. Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements .............................................................................................99
1. Finding Regarding Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements .................................................................................99 ii. Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge ..................................................................................................100
1. Finding Regarding Groundwater Supply or Recharge.................101 iii. Result in Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site .........................................103
1. Finding Regarding Erosion or Siltation .......................................103 iv. Result in On- or Off-site Flooding...........................................................104
1. Finding Regarding On- or Off-Site Flooding ..............................104 v. Create Runoff Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems.................................................................104
1. Finding Regarding Substantial Runoff ........................................105 vi. Impede or Redirect Flood Flows..............................................................105
1. Finding Regarding Flood Flows ..................................................106 vii. Risk Release of Pollutants due to Project Inundation..............................106
1. Finding Regarding Release of Pollutants due to Project Inundation106 viii. Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.....................................................................................107
1. Finding Regarding Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan...........................107 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING...........................................................................108 i. 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 And Environmental Effect................................108
1. Finding Regarding Conflicting With Any Land Use Plan, Policy, Or Regulation...............................................................................108 J. NOISE..................................................................................................................109 i. 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,
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1049 of 2236 vii
Within Two Miles of a Public Airport or Public Use Airport, Would the Project Expose People Residing or Working in the Project Area to Excessive Noise Levels............................................................................109
1. Finding Regarding the Project’s Vicinity of an Airport ..............109 K. POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................111 i. Induce Direct or Indirect Unplanned Growth ..........................................111
1. Findings Regarding Induced Growth...........................................111 L. PUBLIC SERVICES ...........................................................................................113 i. Impact Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, Parks, and Other Facilities)113
1. Finding Regarding Impact to Public Services .............................114 M. RECREATION ....................................................................................................116 i. 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.........................................116
1. Finding Regarding the Substantial Physical Deterioration of a Recreational Facility ....................................................................117 ii. Requires the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Which Might Have an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment .................118 iii. Finding Regarding the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities...................................................................................................118 N. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................119 i. Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System......................................................................................................119
1. Finding Regarding Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System..............................................119 ii. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses....................................................................................122
1. Finding Regarding Traffic Hazards .............................................122 iii. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access .................................................122
1. Finding Regarding Inadequate Emergency Access .....................123 O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................123 i. Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities, the Construction of Which May Cause Significant Environmental Effects ................................................123
1. Findings Regarding the Construction of New or Expanded Facilities.......................................................................................124
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1050 of 2236 viii
ii. Sufficiency of Water Supplies .................................................................127
1. Findings Regarding the Sufficiency of Water Supplies...............127 iii. Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .................................................129
1. Findings Regarding Wastewater Treatment System Capacity.....129 iv. Generate Excess Solid Waste...................................................................130
1. Findings Regarding the Generation of Excess Solid Waste ........130 v. Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste ..............131
1. Findings Regarding Solid Waste Statues and Regulations..........131 VII. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT........131 A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................132 i. Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................132
1. Finding Regarding Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community ..................................................................................132 ii. 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.............................................................................................132
1. Finding Regarding State or Federally Protected Wetlands..........132 B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................133 i. Result in Substantial Adverse Effects from the Rupture of a Known Fault133
1. Finding Regarding Substantial Adverse Effects from the Rupture of a Known Fault .........................................................................133 ii. 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 ...............................................133
1. Finding Regarding Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems .........................................................................133 C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...............................................134 i. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous Materials Within OneQuarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School.....................................134
1. Finding Regarding Impacts to Schools........................................134 ii. 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 Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1051 of 2236 ix
Public Use Airport, Would the Project Result in a Safety Hazard or Excessive Noise for People Residing or Working in the Project Area....134
1. Finding Regarding the Project’s Location Within an Airport Land Use Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport .....................134 D. LAND USE AND PLANNING...........................................................................135 i. Physically Divide an Established Community.........................................135
1. Finding Regarding Physically Divide an Established Community135 E. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................136 i. Effects on the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource ......................................................................136
1. Finding Regarding Mineral Resources ........................................136 F. POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................136 i. Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing People or Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere......136
1. Finding Regarding Displacing People or Housing ......................137 G. WILDFIRE ..........................................................................................................137 i. Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan; Expose Project Occupants Pollutant Concentrations from a Wildfire or the Uncontrolled Spread of a Wildfire; Require the Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure that may Exacerbate Fire Risk; or Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks as a Result of Post-Fire Slope Instability.................................................137
1. Findings Regarding Wildfires......................................................137 VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................138 A. AESTHETICS......................................................................................................138 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................140 C. AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................140 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.............................................................................140 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................141 F. ENERGY RESOURCES .....................................................................................141 G. GEOLOGY ..........................................................................................................144 H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS....................................................................144 I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...............................................145 J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.........................................................145 K. LAND USE AND PLANNING...........................................................................146
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1052 of 2236 x
L. NOISE..................................................................................................................146 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................147 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ...........................................................................................147 O. RECREATION ....................................................................................................148 P. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................149 Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................150 R. UTILITIES...........................................................................................................151 IX. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR ...................153 X. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (REFER TO EXHIBIT B)......................................................................................................................................160 XI. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR.....................................161
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1053 of 2236 1 Final EIR SCH No. 2024050578
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Indio (“City”) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the proposed The Oasis at Indio Project (“project”) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The City is the CEQA Lead Agency for the project. The EIR identifies significant environmental effects to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Prior to the development of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was written. The NOP briefly analyzed the environmental topic to determine the significant impacts of the various threshold criteria as determined by the CEQA Guidelines. The NOP confirmed no impacts related to Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire (see Chapter 6.0 of the DEIR).
Where an EIR has been certified which identifies significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved or carried out, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require the CEQA Lead Agency to make one or more of the following written findings with respect to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
CEQA requires that the Findings be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(b).) Under CEQA, “substantial evidence” means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15384.) Substantial evidence must include facts, reasonable assumptions predicted upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15384(b).) Additional substantial evidence supporting all Findings made herein is contained in the EIR and/or the record of proceedings.
As detailed in Section V, below, the City further finds that for each of the significant impacts to Air Quality (expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations), Biological
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1054 of 2236 2 Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions, Hazards, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, mitigation measures have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant environmental effects and that such effects will therefore not result in significant effects on the environment.
The City further finds that the project will result in less than significant impacts with respect to the Aesthetics, Agriculture, Air Quality (result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors), Cultural Resources (historical resources), Energy, Geology (landslides), Hazards (located on a hazardous materials site, impact an emergency response plan, wildfires), Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise (project effected by noise from an airport), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation (General Plan consistency, traffic hazards, emergency access), and Utilities and Service Systems effects detailed in Section VI below.
While discussion of resources with no impacts is not required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines in this discussion of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City further finds that the project will result in no impacts with respect to Biological Resources (riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, effect State or federally protected wetlands) Geology (rupture of a known fault, involve septic tanks), Hazards (located within a quarter-mile of a school, or effected by an airport in proximity), Land Use and Planning (divide an established community), Mineral Resources, Population and Housing (displace people or housing), and Wildfires effects detailed in Section VII below.
As detailed in Section VIII, the City further finds that the environmentally superior alternatives identified in the EIR (Alternative 1/ No Project Alternative and Alternative 4/No Commercial Maximum Buildout Scenario Alternative) are infeasible because neither environmentally superior alternative would meet the majority of the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project, and is otherwise infeasible and undesirable for the reasons stated herein. The City finds that Alternative 2/General Plan Buildout Alternative and Alternative 3/Zoning Buildout Alternative, is infeasible because it incrementally increases the impacts of Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation, and Utilities due to the increased commercial space allowed within the Alternatives.
For purposes of the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings consists of the following:
• The City’s General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto;
• The Draft EIR for the project, including all Appendices thereto and all supporting materials referenced therein;
• The Final EIR for the project, including all comments on the Draft EIR, all responses thereto, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • All reports of the City relating to the project, including reports submitted to the City by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein;
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1055 of 2236 3 • These Findings made by the City and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) adopted by the City for the project;
• All final City Staff reports relating to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and/or the project;
• All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, prepared by the City, consultants to the County, or responsible or trustee agencies; and • All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the City’s policies, guidelines and regulations.
The official custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings is:
City of Indio
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
Phone: 760-391-4000
Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based, are, and at all relevant times have been, available upon request at the offices of the City, the custodian for such documents.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area encompasses approximately 183 acres at the southwest corner of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street. The proposed mixed-use project will establish a community where proposed multi-family residential housing can support the proposed businesses within walking distance.
The project proposes residential, commercial/retail, and industrial uses identified in four Planning Areas (1 through 4). Planning Area (PA) 1 is situated on approximately 61.6 acres along the northern boundary of the site, and Planning Area 2 is located on approximately 4.2 acres east of Planning Area 1, at the southwest corner of Avenue 42 and Monroe Street. Planning Area 3 is located on approximately 9.3 acres south of PA 2, at the northwest corner of Monroe Street and the Interstate 10 on-ramp. Planning Area 4 is located on approximately 92.2 acres along the southern boundary of the project site. The project also proposes a 3-acre substation to provide electric power to the site in a separate parcel located in the southern portion of the project (within PA4).
The EIR analyzes two buildout scenarios reflective of development that could occur under the Specific Plan’s development standards and development maximums:
1. Maximum Buildout Scenario (MBS): The MBS assumes buildout of the project consistent with the developmental maximums, which would result in 3,240 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, and 1,806,290 square feet of industrial development.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1056 of 2236 4 2. Scenario 2: Scenario 2 assumes lesser buildout than the MBS but within the maximum intensities permitted. It would result in 1,237 dwelling units, 71,600 square feet of retail, commercial uses, a 128 key hotel/motel, and 1,806,290 square feet of industrial uses.
The project also includes supporting drainage, water and wastewater and dry utility infrastructure on the project property as well as outside the project property that is described in greater detail in Section 3.8 of Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR (Infrastructure Plan). A detailed project description is provided on pages 3-1 through 3-31 of the Draft EIR.
III. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 23-0001), Zone Change (ZC 23-0001), Specific Plan (SP No. 23-0001), Finance Map (PLAN-TPM-25-0013), and Development Agreement (DA 23-0001), as a part of the entitlement process. The General Plan Amendment will amend the current General Plan land use designations from Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) and Regional Commercial (RC) to Specific Plan (SP). The proposed Zone Change will revise the existing zoning designation of Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MUN) and Regional Commercial (RC) to SP, consistent with the GPA. Approval of the Oasis at Indio Specific Plan will act as a regulatory document establishing the zoning, land use designations, development standards, and design guidelines for the entire Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan will implement the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council and will be adopted by Ordinance. The Finance Map is a basic tool for implementation of a specific plan. The Finance Map will create the backbone road and four development parcels for financing purposes. The Oasis at Indio Development Agreement will comply with the provisions of California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 (the Development Agreement Statute) for the purpose of providing the developer and the City with long-term assurances of land use and to allow for flexibility in timing development. The development agreement may include, but not be limited to, methods for financing, acquisition, and construction of infrastructure, and the provision of economic opportunities for the City of Indio and employment and/or housing opportunities for community residents.
IV. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, after all feasible mitigation measures have been considered and adopted. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX, below.
Where the City has determined that even with compliance with existing laws, codes, and statues, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant or no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the significant impact, the City has found in accordance with Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, for each of the following significant effects, “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.” However,
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1057 of 2236 5 the City finds that with respect to the significant and unavoidable impacts described below, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section IX below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
A. AIR QUALITY
i. Conflict with an Applicable Air Quality Plan
The proposed project is within the Coachella Valley Planning Area of the Salton Sea Air Basin, which is under the authority of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Air quality in the Coachella Valley is governed by the 2002 and 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) and the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The project would comply with requirements in the CVSIP through the implementation of SCAQMD’s Rule 403.1 and the Indio Municipal Code that require the preparation, approval, and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan during the period of construction as part of the Coachella Valley strategy for reducing fugitive dust emissions. The project’s consistency with the AQMP is dependent on two criteria: (1) if the project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP, and (2) if the project does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standard violation or cause a new one.
The project’s inconsistency with the State and regional plans results in a significant impact.
1. Mitigation Measures:
To mitigate impacts concerning the implementation of an applicable air quality plan, the following mitigation measures (as recommended in the Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B in the DEIR)) are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
AIR‐1: Reduce Construction VOC Emissions. To reduce potential construction‐related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Use architectural coatings that meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) “Super Compliant” VOC standard of 10 grams/liter or less for all interior and exterior primer, sealer, paint, and other coating applications for which a super compliant product is commercially available.
2) Keep all coating containers closed when not in use to prevent VOC emissions.
3) Keep all paint and solvent laden rags and other materials in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1058 of 2236 6 4) Clean up water‐based paints with water only and when possible do not rinse clean‐up water down the drain, onto the ground, or into a storm drain.
5) Use SCAQMD compliant Clean Air Solvents to clean paint application equipment.
6) Recycle leftover paint.
AIR‐2: Reduce Construction NOx and PM Exhaust Emissions. To reduce potential construction‐related exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Connect to existing electrical service to power construction trailers and stationery and portable equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors, and welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If it is not feasible to connect to electrical service and/or extend electrical service to all work sites, biodiesel (no more than B20 blend), renewable diesel, or propane shall be used to power stationary and portable equipment provided the use of such fuels is allowed pursuant to manufacturer’s specifications. The use of stationary or portable standard diesel‐fueled equipment shall be prohibited in the Project area unless electrical service is denied, alternative fuels are not permitted by the manufacture for the specific equipment in use, and there are no alternative equipment types capable of being powered by alternative fuels that can be used instead of the standard diesel‐fueled equipment.
2) All construction equipment with a rated power‐output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet Tier IV Final emissions standards for NOX and PM10. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV emission standards, or by equipment that has been retrofitted with CARB‐verified diesel emissions control strategies capable of reducing exhaust NOX and PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards. Compliance with this requirement may be demonstrated on a fleet‐average basis for the specific pieces of construction equipment that would operate in the Project area.
3) Limit idling of diesel‐powered construction equipment, vendor delivery trucks, and hauling trucks to no more than two minutes unless manufacturer’s specifications specifically require main engine idling is necessary to maintain equipment in good working order.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1059 of 2236 7 AIR‐3: Reduce Landscaping Equipment Emissions. To reduce potential air pollutant emissions from small off‐road equipment less than 25 horsepower that could be used for landscaping activities in the Project area, the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Residential Projects (including the residential component of mixed‐use projects): Provide property managers and the owner/occupants of individual dwelling units with information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Residential Electric Lawn Mower Rebate Program, such as the SCAQMD program website or handouts summarizing program details, frequently asked questions, etc. This information may be provided as part of real estate and lease transactions or as posted bulletin/informational items in leasing offices, community rooms, etc. associated with individual developments.
2) Commercial and Industrial Projects (including the commercial component of mixed‐use projects): Provide property managers and owner/occupants of individual building units with information on the SCAQMD Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment
Incentive Exchange Program, such as the SCAQMD program website or handouts summarizing program details, frequently asked questions, etc. This information shall be provided as part of real estate and lease transactions.
3) Industrial Projects: Provide property managers and owner/occupants of individual warehouse properties with information on the California Air Resources Board's Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), such as the HVIP website or handouts summarizing HVIP details, frequently asked questions, etc. This information shall be provided as part of real‐estate and lease transactions.
AIR‐4: Reduce Residential Vehicle Trip Emissions. To reduce potential residential vehicle trip emissions, tall future residential development in the Project area, including the residential component of mixed‐ use development, shall implement the following measures:
1) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging: Require residential projects to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 charging provisions for new construction contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary Tier 1 provisions for
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1060 of 2236 8 EV charging in new multi‐family development projects (CalGreen Code Section A104.6.8.2.1):
a) EV Ready. 35% of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, not more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit. This Tier 1 provision does not apply in areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts. b) EV Chargers for Projects with 20 or more dwelling units. 10% of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE). Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents.
2) Bicycle Parking: Require residential projects to comply with the voluntary bicycle parking provisions contained in the version of the CalGreen Code that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary provisions for bicycle parking (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9 et. seq.):
a) Short‐term Bicycle Parking (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.1):
Provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitor’s entrance, readily visible to passers‐by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity with a minimum of one two‐bike capacity rack.
b) Long‐term Bicycle Parking for Multi‐family Buildings (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.2): Provide on‐site bicycle parking for at least one bicycle per every two dwelling units. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2) Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3) Lockable,
permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
AIR‐5: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Light‐duty Vehicle Trip Emissions. To reduce potential non‐ residential commercial and industrial light duty vehicle trip emissions (i.e., passenger cars and pick‐up trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8.500 pounds or less), the Applicant shall require all future non‐residential development in the Project area, including the commercial component of mixed‐use developments, to implement the following measures:
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1061 of 2236 9 1) Require non‐residential projects, excluding hotel/motel, to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging provisions for new construction and the voluntary bicycle accommodation provisions contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary provisions for EV charging and bicycle accommodations in non‐residential projects:
a) EV Charging Tier 1 Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A5.106.5.3): The number of EV capable spaces and spaces with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE shall be determined based on the total number of actual parking spaces as set forth in CalGreen Code Table A5.106.5.3.1 (Tier 1).
b) Bicycle Accommodation Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A5.106.4.3): The number of shower/changing facilities and personal effects lockers to be provided in buildings with over 10 tenant‐occupants shall be determined based on the total number of tenant‐occupants as set forth in CalGreen Code Table A5.106.4.3:
2) Require hotel/motel projects to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging provisions for new construction and the voluntary long‐term bicycle parking provisions contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary provisions for EV charging and bicycle parking in hotel and motel buildings:
a) EV Charging Tier 1 Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A6.108.2.1): See Mitigation Measure AQ‐4, Section 2.
b) Long‐term Bicycle Parking Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.3): Provide one on‐site bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet, but not less than two. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2) Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3) Lockable,
permanently anchored bicycle lockers:
AIR‐6: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Truck Trip Emissions. To reduce potential commercial and industrial truck trip emissions (i.e., light‐heavy, medium‐heavy, and heavy‐heavy duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1062 of 2236 10 of 8,501 pounds or greater) and promote the use of near‐zero emission (NZE) and zero emission (ZE) trucks, all future commercial and industrial development in the Project area shall implement the following measures:
1) Electrical System Design: The electrical system shall be designed and constructed to provide the infrastructure necessary to supply power for future NZE and ZE trucks accessing loading docks and bays, including trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs), such as spare raceways or busways, adequate transformer capacity, main service equipment and subpanels, etc. Raceways or busways shall originate at a main service panel serving the loading area and terminate close to the future location of truck charging equipment.
2) TRU Restrictions: The use of diesel fueled TRUs shall be prohibited.
All refrigerated trucks entering a project site shall include TRUs that can be powered by electricity.
3) Idling Signage: Signs shall be posted at all truck access gates and loading dock areas reminding drivers of idling limitations. The signs shall be clearly visible, readable at 10 feet, and notify truck drivers that:
a) The vehicle’s primary diesel engine shall be turned off when not in use.
b) The vehicle’s primary diesel engine shall not idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
c) The vehicle’s diesel‐fueled auxiliary power systems shall not operate for more than 5 minutes at any location within 100 feet of housing units, hotels, motels, and other pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
AIR‐7: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Yard Equipment Emissions. To reduce potential emissions from commercial and industrial yard equipment, including, but not limited to yard trucks, hostlers, forklifts, and pallet jacks, (e.g., forklifts, yard hostlers, etc.), the Applicant shall require all future commercial and industrial yard equipment operated in the Project area to be zero‐emission (ZE) equipment.
2. Finding Related to the Conflict with an Applicable Air Quality Plan The proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds for regional emissions even within the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures that reduce construction and operational emissions (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-7). The project, therefore, would result in significant and unavoidable increases in criteria air pollutants, including nonattainment ozone precursor and
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1063 of 2236 11 PM10 pollutants, which could lead to increases in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation.
The City of Indio finds that there are no additional feasible and reasonable mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City Council makes the finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and determines that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project is anticipated to have a conservative total Service Population of 13,946, made up of population and employment. The proposed project would fit within the overall population and employment growth the 2022 AQMP forecasts to occur in the City 2045 but could constitute a sizeable proportion of the growth allocated to the city. Nonetheless, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions contained in the AQMP (i.e., Criteria 1). See DEIR page 4.3-
26. Consistency Criterion 2 refers to the CAAQS. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D‐3). The proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds for regional emissions even within the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures that reduce construction and operational emissions. The proposed project, therefore, would result in significant and unavoidable increases in criteria air pollutants, including nonattainment ozone precursor and PM10 pollutants, which could lead to increases in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation. See DEIR page 4.3-27.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CVSIP, but could conflict with the 2022 AQMP. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. ii. Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant
Construction
The maximum unmitigated regional construction emissions, in pounds per day (lbs/day), are summarized for each construction scenario and phase in Tables 4.3‐4 (unmitigated construction maximum daily regional emissions for general site development (i.e., mass grading, A Street, and IID Substation)), 4.3‐5 (unmitigated construction maximum daily regional emissions for the Maximum Buildout Scenario (MBS)); and 4.3‐6 (unmitigated construction maximum daily regional emissions for Scenario 2). See DEIR pages 4.3-28 to 4.3-30.
During site development, the project would not result in the exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds for emissions (Table 4.3-4). In contrast, the unmitigated maximum daily regional emissions estimates for all individual MBS and Scenario 2 construction models would not exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional emissions thresholds for NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, or PM2.5;
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1064 of 2236 12 however, unmitigated regional volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions for all MBS and Scenario 2 models would exceed the SCAQMD‐recommended CEQA significance threshold of 75 lbs/day during architectural coating phases (Table 4.3‐5 and Table 4.3‐6). This is considered a significant impact (p. 4.3-31).
The project’s combined unmitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions estimates were analyzed for the MBS and Scenario 2 projects (see Tables 4.3‐7 and 4.3‐8, respectively).
Per the analysis, the MBS’s combined unmitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions estimates would not exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional emissions thresholds for CO, SO2, PM10, or PM2.5; however, combined emissions would exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional emissions thresholds for VOCs (75 lbs/day) in 2026, 2027 and 2028 and NOx (100 lbs/day) in 2025 and 2026. In total, combined unmitigated emissions could exceed the SCAQMD’s regional VOC and/or NOx emissions thresholds in 12 out of 15 modeled calendar quarters from 2025 to 2028.
The results for Scenario 2 regional construction emissions are like results for the MBS. Scenario 2’s combined unmitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions estimates would not exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional emissions thresholds for CO, SO2, PM10, or PM2.5, but would exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional emissions thresholds for VOCs (75 lbs/day) in 2026, 2027, and 2028 (during overlapping architectural coating phases) and NOx (100 lbs/day) in 2025 and 2026 (during overlapping site preparation and/or building construction phases). In total, combined unmitigated emissions could exceed the SCAQMD’s regional VOC and/or NOx emissions thresholds in 11 out of 15 modeled calendar quarters from 2025 to 2028.
Therefore, the proposed project’s combined unmitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions estimates could exceed SCAQMD‐recommended regional thresholds for VOC and NOx (see Tables 4.3-7 and 4.3-8 in Section 4.3 of the DEIR). This is considered a significant impact.
Operation
Buildout of the MBS and Scenario 2 projects is anticipated to be year 2033. The unmitigated operational maximum daily regional emissions for the MBS project would result in the exceedance of VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10; while SO2 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (see Table 4.3-14 of the DEIR). The unmitigated operational maximum daily regional emissions for Scenario 2 would result in the exceedance of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5; while SO2 would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (see Table 4.3-15 of the DEIR). The proposed project would have the potential to generate daily operational emissions that could exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended regional emissions thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
This is considered a significant impact (see pages 4.3-39 through 4.3-42 of the DEIR).
1. Mitigation Measures:
To mitigate impacts concerning the implementation of an applicable air quality plan, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1065 of 2236 13 AIR‐1: Reduce Construction VOC Emissions. To reduce potential construction‐related emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Use architectural coatings that meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) “Super Compliant” VOC standard of 10 grams/liter or less for all interior and exterior primer, sealer, paint, and other coating applications for which a super compliant product is commercially available.
2) Keep all coating containers closed when not in use to prevent VOC emissions.
3) Keep all paint and solvent laden rags and other materials in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
4) Clean up water‐based paints with water only and when possible do not rinse clean‐up water down the drain, onto the ground, or into a storm drain.
5) Use SCAQMD compliant Clean Air Solvents to clean paint application equipment.
6) Recycle leftover paint.
AIR‐2: Reduce Construction NOx and PM Exhaust Emissions. To reduce potential construction‐related exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Connect to existing electrical service to power construction trailers and stationery and portable equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors, and welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If it is not feasible to connect to electrical service and/or extend electrical service to all work sites, biodiesel (no more than B20 blend), renewable diesel, or propane shall be used to power stationary and portable equipment provided the use of such fuels is allowed pursuant to manufacturer’s specifications. The use of stationary or portable standard diesel‐fueled equipment shall be prohibited in the Project area unless electrical service is denied, alternative fuels are not permitted by the manufacture for the specific equipment in use, and there are no alternative equipment types capable of being powered by alternative fuels that can be used instead of the standard diesel‐fueled equipment.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1066 of 2236 14 2) All construction equipment with a rated power‐output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet Tier IV Final emissions standards for NOX and PM10. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV emission standards, or by equipment that has been retrofitted with CARB‐verified diesel emissions control strategies capable of reducing exhaust NOX and PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards. Compliance with this requirement may be demonstrated on a fleet‐average basis for the specific pieces of construction equipment that would operate in the Project area.
3) Limit idling of diesel‐powered construction equipment, vendor delivery trucks, and hauling trucks to no more than two minutes unless manufacturer’s specifications specifically require main engine idling is necessary to maintain equipment in good working order.
AIR‐3: Reduce Landscaping Equipment Emissions. To reduce potential air pollutant emissions from small off‐road equipment less than 25 horsepower that could be used for landscaping activities in the Project area, the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Residential Projects (including the residential component of mixed‐use projects): Provide property managers and the owner/occupants of individual dwelling units with information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Residential Electric Lawn Mower Rebate Program, such as the SCAQMD program website or handouts summarizing program details, frequently asked questions, etc. This information may be provided as part of real estate and lease transactions or as posted bulletin/informational items in leasing offices, community rooms, etc. associated with individual developments.
2) Commercial and Industrial Projects (including the commercial component of mixed‐use projects): Provide property managers and owner/occupants of individual building units with information on the SCAQMD Commercial Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment
Incentive Exchange Program, such as the SCAQMD program website or handouts summarizing program details, frequently asked questions, etc. This information shall be provided as part of real estate and lease transactions.
3) Industrial Projects: Provide property managers and owner/occupants of individual warehouse properties with information on the California Air Resources Board's Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), such as the HVIP website or handouts summarizing HVIP details, frequently asked questions, etc. This
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1067 of 2236 15 information shall be provided as part of real‐estate and lease transactions.
AIR‐4: Reduce Residential Vehicle Trip Emissions. To reduce potential residential vehicle trip emissions, tall future residential development in the Project area, including the residential component of mixed‐ use development, shall implement the following measures:
1) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging: Require residential projects to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 charging provisions for new construction contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary Tier 1 provisions for EV charging in new multi‐family development projects (CalGreen Code Section A104.6.8.2.1):
a) EV Ready. 35% of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, not more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit. This Tier 1 provision does not apply in areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts. b) EV Chargers for Projects with 20 or more dwelling units. 10% of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE). Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents.
2) Bicycle Parking: Require residential projects to comply with the voluntary bicycle parking provisions contained in the version of the CalGreen Code that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary provisions for bicycle parking (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9 et. seq.):
a) Short‐term Bicycle Parking (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.1):
Provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of the visitor’s entrance, readily visible to passers‐by, for 5% of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity with a minimum of one two‐bike capacity rack.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1068 of 2236 16 b) Long‐term Bicycle Parking for Multi‐family Buildings (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.2): Provide on‐site bicycle parking for at least one bicycle per every two dwelling units. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2) Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3) Lockable,
permanently anchored bicycle lockers.
AIR‐5: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Light‐duty Vehicle Trip Emissions. To reduce potential non‐ residential commercial and industrial light duty vehicle trip emissions (i.e., passenger cars and pick‐up trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8.500 pounds or less), the Applicant shall require all future non‐residential development in the Project area, including the commercial component of mixed‐use developments, to implement the following measures:
1) Require non‐residential projects, excluding hotel/motel, to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging provisions for new construction and the voluntary bicycle accommodation provisions contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the following voluntary provisions for EV charging and bicycle accommodations in non‐residential projects:
a) EV Charging Tier 1 Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A5.106.5.3): The number of EV capable spaces and spaces with electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE shall be determined based on the total number of actual parking spaces as set forth in CalGreen Code Table A5.106.5.3.1 (Tier 1)).
b) Bicycle Accommodation Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A5.106.4.3): The number of shower/changing facilities and personal effects lockers to be provided in buildings with over 10 tenant‐occupants shall be determined based on the total number of tenant‐occupants as set forth in CalGreen Code Table A5.106.4.3:
2) Require hotel/motel projects to comply with the voluntary Tier 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging provisions for new construction and the voluntary long‐term bicycle parking provisions contained in the version of the California Green Building Code (CalGreen Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the City has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the CalGreen Code. As of January 1, 2023, the 2022 CalGreen Code includes the
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1069 of 2236 17 following voluntary provisions for EV charging and bicycle parking in hotel and motel buildings:
a) EV Charging Tier 1 Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A6.108.2.1): See Mitigation Measure AQ‐4, Section 2.
b) Long‐term Bicycle Parking Provisions (CalGreen Code Section A4.106.9.3): Provide one on‐site bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet, but not less than two. Acceptable parking facilities shall be conveniently reached from the street and may include, but not be limited to: 1) covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2) Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or 3) Lockable,
permanently anchored bicycle lockers:
AIR‐6: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Truck Trip Emissions. To reduce potential commercial and industrial truck trip emissions (i.e., light‐heavy, medium‐heavy, and heavy‐heavy duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,501 pounds or greater) and promote the use of near‐zero emission (NZE) and zero emission (ZE) trucks, all future commercial and industrial development in the Project area shall implement the following measures:
1) Electrical System Design: The electrical system shall be designed and constructed to provide the infrastructure necessary to supply power for future NZE and ZE trucks accessing loading docks and bays, including trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs), such as spare raceways or busways, adequate transformer capacity, main service equipment and subpanels, etc. Raceways or busways shall originate at a main service panel serving the loading area and terminate close to the future location of truck charging equipment.
2) TRU Restrictions: The use of diesel fueled TRUs shall be prohibited.
All refrigerated trucks entering a project site shall include TRUs that can be powered by electricity.
3) Idling Signage: Signs shall be posted at all truck access gates and loading dock areas reminding drivers of idling limitations. The signs shall be clearly visible, readable at 10 feet, and notify truck drivers that:
a) The vehicle’s primary diesel engine shall be turned off when not in use.
b) The vehicle’s primary diesel engine shall not idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes at any location pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1070 of 2236 18 c) The vehicle’s diesel‐fueled auxiliary power systems shall not operate for more than 5 minutes at any location within 100 feet of housing units, hotels, motels, and other pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
AIR‐7: Reduce Commercial and Industrial Yard Equipment Emissions. To reduce potential emissions from commercial and industrial yard equipment, including, but not limited to yard trucks, hostlers, forklifts, and pallet jacks, (e.g., forklifts, yard hostlers, etc.), the Applicant shall require all future commercial and industrial yard equipment operated in the Project area to be zero‐emission (ZE) equipment.
2. Finding Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant
The proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds for regional emissions even within the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures that reduce construction and operational emissions. The proposed project, therefore, would result in significant and unavoidable increases in criteria air pollutants, including nonattainment ozone precursor and PM10 pollutants, which could lead to increases in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation.
The City of Indio finds that there are no additional feasible and reasonable mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City Council makes the finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and determines that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Construction
To reduce the proposed project’s regional construction emissions levels, Air Quality Study and Health Risk Assessment recommends the proposed project incorporate Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 (Reduce Construction VOC Emissions) and AIR‐2 (Reduce Construction NOx and DPM Emissions) into all future development projects in the project area. These measures require the use of SCAQMD “super compliant” coatings with a VOC content of 10 grams per liter (g/l) or less and the implementation of emission control measures that reduce construction NOx and DPM emissions, including the use of construction equipment that meets Tier IV exhaust emissions standards.
The proposed project’s mitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions for each individual construction model would below the SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds for all VOC and NOx; however, combined architectural coating phases in 2026 and 2027 involving more than approximately 125,000 total square feet of daily interior, exterior, and surface parking area coating applications for the Industrial Southwest and Industrial Southeast model runs could
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1071 of 2236 19 exceed the SCAQMD’s regional construction emissions threshold for VOC emissions even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and AIR‐2.
Although this scenario is unlikely, the modeling conducted for the proposed project indicates it could occur if both industrial buildings in PA 4 were simultaneously having coatings applied, or if large residential (e.g., MBS PA 1 Northwest Residential) or mixed‐use (e.g., MBS PA 1 Northeast and PA 2 Mixed‐Use) developments in PA 1 or PA 2 were to occur at the same time.
Since the timing and nature of future development in the project area is not known at this time, it is also possible other combinations of projects could result in coating activities that exceed VOC threshold limits. In contrast, combined mitigated maximum daily regional NOx construction emissions estimates are substantially less than the SCAQMD’s emissions thresholds for all possible project combinations and, therefore, the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD regional NOx emissions thresholds. For these reasons, the proposed project’s regional construction VOC emissions would remain a significant and unavoidable impact even with the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures.
Operation
As summarized above, the proposed project would generate daily operational emissions that could exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended regional emissions thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. This is considered a significant impact.
VOCs: The proposed project’s maximum daily VOC emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional threshold (55 lbs/day) for both the MBS and Scenario 2. The primary source of the project’s VOC emissions for both scenarios is area source emissions, which account for approximately 63% of total VOC emissions under the MBS and 52% of total VOC emissions under Scenario 2, with fugitive emissions from consumer products being the largest contributor (71%) to area source emissions under both scenarios.
NOX: The proposed project’s maximum daily NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional threshold (55 lbs/day) for both the MBS and Scenario 2. The primary source of the project’s NOX emissions for both scenarios is mobile sources. For the MBS, residential and industrial vehicle trips generate approximately 21% and 76%, respectively, of total mobile source NOX emissions, and 15% and 54% respectively, of total daily NOX emissions. For Scenario 2, commercial and industrial vehicle trips generate approximately 23% and 67%, respectively, of total mobile source NOX emissions, and 20% and 57% respectively of total daily NOX emissions. For Scenario 2, residential vehicle trips account for less than 6% of total daily NOX emissions.
CO: The proposed project’s maximum daily CO emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional threshold (550 lbs/day) for both the MBS and Scenario 2. Like NOX, the primary source of CO emissions would be mobile sources, which would generate approximately 67% (MBS) to 84% (Scenario 2) of total daily CO emissions. The next highest source of CO emissions would be area sources, and specifically landscaping equipment, which would generate approximately 29% (MBS) and 15% (Scenario 2) of total daily CO emissions.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1072 of 2236 20 PM10 and PM2.5: The proposed project’s maximum daily PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds (150 lbs/day for PM10 and 55 lbs/day PM2.5) for both the MBS and Scenario 2. Like NOX and CO, the primary source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be mobile sources; however, unlike NOX and CO, most PM would not be generated from fuel combustion. Rather, approximately 98% of total daily PM10 emissions and 94% of total daily PM2.5 emissions would be the result of entrained road dust from vehicle travel.
To reduce the project’s maximum daily regional operations emissions levels, the project shall incorporate Mitigation Measures AIR‐3 (Reduce Landscaping Equipment Emissions), AIR‐4 (Reduce Residential Vehicle Trip Emissions), AIR‐5 (Reduce Commercial and Industrial Light‐Duty Vehicle Trip Emissions), AIR‐6 (Reduce Commercial and Industrial Truck Trip Emissions), and AIR‐7 (Reduce Commercial and Industrial Yard Equipment Emissions). These measures promote the use of near‐zero emission (NZE) and zero‐emission (ZE) landscaping equipment, require electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure for charging for EV cars and trucks, and require the use of ZE yard equipment.
The project’s mitigated maximum regional operational emissions (in lbs/day) are summarized in Table 4.3‐16 (MBS) and Table 4.3‐17 (Scenario 2). It is noted that project’s mitigated emissions estimates do not assume any reduction in mobile source emissions due to compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan requirements; however, the mitigated emission estimates assume the elimination of diesel yard hostelers (per Mitigation Measure AIR‐7). Since future project‐specific details are not known, it is not possible to know the quantity of emissions that would be reduced by Mitigation Measures AIR‐3 to AIR‐6.
Therefore, the emissions reductions that would be achieved by these measures are not included in the mitigated emissions estimates. Therefore, the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR‐3 to AIR‐7 would reduce emissions of VOC, CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, but not to levels that are below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds. For this reason, the proposed project’s regional operational emissions would remain a significant and unavoidable impact even with the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. There are no additional mitigation measures that are technologically feasible to reduce emissions associated with the project, as mobile source emissions are regulated at the state/federal level. The project incorporates all measures that ensure proper functioning of a vibrant, mixed-use project.
In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D‐3). As described above, the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions could remain above the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants even with the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants.
The City of Indio further finds that the cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant will remain significant and unavoidable and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the EIR.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1073 of 2236 21 B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
i. Generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
Project implementation would result in construction-phase and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. Accordingly, SCAQMD recommends averaging construction GHG emissions over a 30‐year period and combining this average with operational emissions estimates to facilitate comparison to thresholds, standards, plans, etc. that may be based on annual GHG emissions estimates or GHG reduction targets. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions that could exceed the emissions levels, in terms of MTCO2e/yr/SP, established by the Indio CAP. This is considered a significant impact.
1. Mitigation Measures:
To mitigate impacts concerning GHG emissions, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
GHG‐1: Reduce Appliance Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions. To reduce potential GHG emissions from appliance‐related energy consumption, all developer‐installed refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, and room air conditioners shall be Energy Star certified products.
GHG‐2: Maximize Solar Roof Access Area. To reduce building energy related GHG emissions, all future residential, commercial, and industrial development shall design roof areas to maximize the solar access roof area by:
1) Minimizing roof areas occupied by other building systems, shading from natural features, external structures, and, for low‐sloped roofs, components of the building itself.
2) Maximizing solar roof access area by covering exterior parking areas with shade control structures that are compatible with photovoltaic systems. This shall only be required if the primary building’s rooftop photovoltaic system does not already meet the minimum photovoltaic system size pursuant to the version of the building energy efficiency standards code in effect at the time a project submits its building permit application. The current 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards establish minimum PV system size for multifamily residential development with three or less habitable stories using equation 170.2‐C, Annual Photovoltaic Electrical Output, and for multifamily residential development with four or more habitable stories using Equation 170.2D, Photovoltaic Direct Current Size.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1074 of 2236 22 GHG‐3: Reduce Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions. To reduce potential GHG emissions associated with the performance of the building envelope and systems components covered by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, all buildings in the project area shall be designed to have a total energy design rating that is at least 5% less than the standard building design for Climate Zone 15. The energy budget for the standard design building and the energy budget for the proposed design building shall be determined in accordance with the definitions and approach set forth in the version of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) that is in effect at the time of building permit approval, unless the city Indio has adopted local requirements that are more stringent than the Energy Code. The requirement to reduce a project’s energy budget by 5% below the standard design building shall not apply if the Energy Code or the city of Indio has already established a zero net energy requirement for the standard design building.
2. Finding Related to Significant and Unavoidable Increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce appliance energy consumption by installing Energy Star certified products; Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would maximize solar roof access area to reduce building energy related GHG emissions; and Mitigation Measure GHG-3 would require all building envelope and systems components covered by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, to have a total energy design rating that is at least 5 percent less than the standard building design. The implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions under the MBS by approximately 4.8 percent for residential land uses and approximately 3.1 percent for nonresidential land uses. For Scenario 2, the mitigation measures are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 5.7 percent for residential land uses and 2.1 percent for non-residential land uses.
The City of Indio finds that there are no additional feasible and reasonable mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City Council makes the finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR, and determines that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding:
As stated above, the project would generate GHG emissions from the short-term construction and long-term operational sources activities. The project’s construction emissions are based on a series of individual construction models. The proposed project’s total unmitigated construction GHG emissions, in MTCO2e/yr, are summarized in Table 4.8-2 and Table 4.8-3, in the DEIR, where the MBS project would generate an average of 808.8 total CO2e per year, and Scenario 2 would generate 604.4 total CO2e per year.
The project’s operational GHG emissions estimates are based on the MBS and Scenario 2 conceptual site plan and development assumptions, the trip generation assumptions, and input
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1075 of 2236 23 assumptions used to estimate the project’s operational air quality impacts (MIG, 2023). The modeling assumes full operation of the project area occurs in the year 2033, consistent with the project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (LLG, 2023a). The proposed project’s unmitigated GHG emissions efficiency for the MBS and Scenario 2 would not exceed the CAP’s 2030 and 2040 GHG levels on a per capita basis, but would exceed the CAP’s 2030 and 2040 GHG levels on a service population basis (see Tables 4.8-4 and 4.8-5 in the DEIR).
The primary source of the project’s GHG emissions is mobile sources, which account for approximately 75.2% of the total GHG emissions under the MBS and 83.5% of the total GHG emissions under Scenario 2. Building energy use is the second highest source of project GHG emissions, accounting for 17.8% of total GHG emissions under the MBS and 11.7% of total GHG emissions under Scenario 2. Together, all other sources (area, waste, water, off‐road equipment, refrigerants, and average construction) would generate less than 10% of the proposed project’s total GHG emissions. Individually, these other GHG emissions sources each contribute a small percentage of GHG emissions (p. 4.8-24).
To reduce the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions levels, the project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure GHG‐1 (Reduce Appliance Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions), Mitigation Measure GHG‐2 (Maximize Solar Roof Access Area), and Mitigation Measure GHG‐3 (Reduce Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions), which would ensure buildings are as energy efficient as possible when they are developed.
Additionally, the project shall implement Mitigation Measures AIR-2 (Reduce Construction NOx and PM Exhaust Emissions), AIR-3 (Reduce Landscaping Equipment Emissions), AIR-4 (Reduce Residential Vehicle Trip Emissions), AIR-5 (Reduce Commercial and industrial LightDuty Vehicle Trip Emissions), AIR-6 (Reduce Commercial and Industrial Truck Trip Emissions), and AIR-7 (Reduce Commercial and Industrial Yard Equipment Emissions) to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Some of these air quality mitigation measures would also reduce GHG emissions.
The implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG‐1 to GHG‐3 and AIR‐2 to AIR‐7 would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions under the MBS by approximately 4.8% for residential land uses and approximately 3.1% for non‐residential land uses. For Scenario 2, the mitigation measures are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 5.7% for residential land uses and 2.1% for non‐residential land uses.
The GHG emissions reductions associated with Mitigation Measures AIR‐2 to AIR‐7 may be much higher but cannot be fully quantified at this time. This is because the amount of EV infrastructure that could be installed in the project area, the number of ZNE or ZE trucks and EVs that could be supported by this infrastructure, and the specific combustion vehicle trip type that could be displaced due to this infrastructure is speculative at this time. In addition, the increase in electricity consumption associated with the use of electric landscaping equipment and EVs is not known at this time, and thus increases in indirect GHG emissions from energy consumption cannot be quantified. State actions to reduce emissions from electricity production would result in less and less GHG emissions with time.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1076 of 2236 24 Moreover, a high number of buildings achieving a substantial increase in EV infrastructure and EV use would substantially reduce building energy and mobile source emissions; however, actual GHG emissions reductions would depend on the type and number of buildings, EV infrastructure, EV use, and other factors that are not known at this time. For these reasons, the additional GHG emissions reductions resulting from AIR‐2 to AIR‐7 have not been quantified.
There are no additional mitigation measures that are technologically feasible to reduce emissions associated with the project, as mobile source emissions are regulated at the state/federal level.
The project incorporates all measures that ensure proper functioning of a vibrant, mixed-use project.
Additionally, the timing and certainty of the reductions assumed by the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed since the actual reductions that would occur with the implementation of the measures and the ability of future actions to achieve State goals cannot be known at this time.
Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the adverse effects of global climate change, even with the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would be significant.
The City of Indio further finds that greenhouse gas emission impacts will remain significant and unavoidable and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR.
V. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITGATION INCORPORATED
In accordance with Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final EIR, “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Because of the environmental analysis of the project, presumed compliance with existing laws, codes, and statues, and the identification and incorporation of feasible mitigation measures, the following significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a less than significant level. The significant effects and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR and each of the mitigation measures have been imposed on the project and are enforceable pursuant to the MMRP, the Development Agreement, and project conditions of approval.
A. AIR QUALITY
i. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards, which would constitute a significant adverse localized air quality effect. In addition, SCAQMD recommends carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic health risk thresholds for sensitive receptors that could be exposed to toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions, such as particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (DPM).
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1077 of 2236 25 The project’s construction and operational activities could contribute to local air quality effects and emit certain TACs, including DPM. Accordingly, the DEIR analyzed project LST and health risk assessments (HRA) for on‐ and off‐site sensitive receptors, analyzed offsite LST construction and operational emissions, offsite HRA, onsite LST construction and operational emissions analysis, onsite HRA, offsite LST, and offsite LST construction emissions utilizing the project-specific Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment (AQHRA) (see pages 4.3-42 through
4.3-46 in the DEIR). Project-related construction and operation could expose off-site or on-site sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations.
1. Mitigation Measures:
To mitigate impacts concerning the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
AIR‐2: Reduce Construction NOx and PM Exhaust Emissions. To reduce potential construction‐related exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), the Applicant shall require all future development projects in the Project area to implement the following measures:
1) Connect to existing electrical service to power construction trailers and stationery and portable equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors, and welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If it is not feasible to connect to electrical service and/or extend electrical service to all work sites, biodiesel (no more than B20 blend), renewable diesel, or propane shall be used to power stationary and portable equipment provided the use of such fuels is allowed pursuant to manufacturer’s specifications. The use of stationary or portable standard diesel‐fueled equipment shall be prohibited in the Project area unless electrical service is denied, alternative fuels are not permitted by the manufacture for the specific equipment in use, and there are no alternative equipment types capable of being powered by alternative fuels that can be used instead of the standard diesel‐fueled equipment.
2) All construction equipment with a rated power‐output of 50 horsepower or greater shall meet Tier IV Final emissions standards for NOX and PM10. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV emission standards, or by equipment that has been retrofitted with CARB‐verified diesel emissions control strategies capable of reducing exhaust NOX and PM10 emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards. Compliance with this requirement may be demonstrated on a fleet‐average basis for the specific pieces of construction equipment that would operate in the Project area.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1078 of 2236 26 3) Limit idling of diesel‐powered construction equipment, vendor delivery trucks, and hauling trucks to no more than two minutes unless manufacturer’s specifications specifically require main engine idling is necessary to maintain equipment in good working order.
2. Finding Related to the Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Impacts associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial project-generated pollutant concentrations are considered significant. The proposed project would generate construction and operational NOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and TAC emissions and changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Due to the proximity of onsite sensitive receptors to onsite construction and operation of commercial and industrial uses, the onsite receptors may be exposed to criteria pollutants. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 would require all future development in the project to reduce NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emission which would reduce construction‐related emissions to levels that do not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (AQMD regarding permitting equipment) and have been or can, and should be, adopted by that other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Construction
The closest off-site receptor to the project site is located approximately 650 feet north of the project. The project’s emissions from construction activities occurring in the project area would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended construction LSTs at the closest off‐site receptor (Tables 4.3‐18 and 4.3‐19 of the DEIR). This impact would be less than significant.
Additionally, the project’s individual construction models would not generate on‐site construction emissions that would exceed SCAQMD‐recommended LST thresholds at future on‐site receptors (indicated as Receptor A and B in the DEIR). On‐site construction emissions from relevant construction models for the receptor scenarios in the DEIR could combine according to the conceptual schedules (Table 4.3‐24); however, each individual construction model would be substantially below SCAQMD NOx and CO LST thresholds for a five acre‐site and combined NOx and CO emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds at the onsite receptors (Tables 4.3‐24 to Table 4.3‐27). Localized emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 for each individual construction model would also be below SCAQMD LST thresholds for a five‐acre project even though modeled acreages were substantially greater than five acres. The proposed project would be subject to SCAQMD and Indio requirements for the control of fugitive dust from construction work sites that would ensure local air quality impacts do not occur. In addition, Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 would require all future development in the project to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emission which would reduce construction‐related PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions to levels that do not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. For these reasons, combined LST emissions impacts would be a less than significant impact.
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1079 of 2236 27 Operation
Offsite Operational Emissions: For the off‐site receptor LST analysis, the on‐site emissions from all project area development were compared to the SCAQMD’s five‐acre operational LST for source receptor area (SRA) 30. This analysis, therefore, is conservative in that it compares emissions from the entire project area to the LST threshold for a five‐acre project. The results of the LST operations emissions analysis concluded that operational activities occurring in the project area would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended LST thresholds at the closest off‐site receptor. This impact would be less than significant (Table 4.3‐20 and Table 4.3‐21 on page 4.3-47 of the DEIR).
Construction and operational HRA was conducted to evaluate the project’s TAC emissions concentrations. The HRA evaluates the project’s construction DPM emissions, operational DPM emissions, and operational gasoline fueling station TAC emissions (part of Scenario 2 only) at off‐site receptor locations based on the TAC emissions and dispersion modeling described the AQHRA. The HRA assumes off‐site receptors are exposed to construction DPM emissions from all construction model runs occurring in 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028, followed by operational DPM emissions and operational gasoline fueling station TAC emissions beginning in 2029 and 2027, respectively. The annual average DPM concentrations and the resulting excess cancer risk estimate for the MBS project and Scenario 2 indicates that the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0 and risk threshold of 10 excess cancers per million population. This impact is less than significant.
Offsite Carbon Monoxide Hotspots: Based on the project-specific TIA (LLG, 2023), the maximum number of vehicles moving through any intersection under full development, cumulative conditions in 2033 would be approximately 5,670 total vehicles per hour at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Indio Boulevard (during the PM peak hour). This level of traffic is less than the traffic volumes (approximately 8,000 vehicles per peak hour) modeled in the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and determined to result in CO concentrations that are below ambient air quality standards. The proposed project, therefore, would not contribute to off‐site traffic volumes that could cause or significantly contribute to CO concentrations that exceed State or Federal ambient air quality standards for CO. This impact would be less than significant.
Onsite Operational Emissions: The project’s worst‐case total combined NOx (88.5 lbs/day) and CO emissions (329.4 lbs/day) estimates under the MBS would not exceed any SCAQMD LST thresholds, including thresholds for a 5‐acre project and a 25‐meter receptor distance (304 lbs/day for NOX and 2,292 lbs/day for CO). In addition, the onsite HRA conducted for the project indicates operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at on‐site receptor locations. For these, the proposed project’s on‐site emissions would be a less than significant impact.
Onsite HRA: The proposed project’s mitigated excess cancer risk from DPM would exceed the SCAQMD risk threshold of 10 excess cancers per million population for the MBS and Scenario 2 projects. Construction‐related risks in the years 2025 to 2028 account for approximately 94% and 92% (respectively) of the total calculated unmitigated excess carcinogenic risk. The project’s construction and operational‐related health risks under the MBS project and Scenario 2 would have a significant impact. Moreover, both the MBS project and Scenario 2 would not exceed
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1080 of 2236 28 SCAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0, resulting in a less than significant impact.
The AQHRA recommended the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AIR‐2 to reduce regional construction emissions levels. This measure reduces construction NOx and DPM emissions by requiring future development in the project area to connect to existing electrical service to power stationary and portable equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors, and welding sets) and use construction equipment that meets Tier IV exhaust emissions standards. The final EPA Tier IV emission standards for off‐road diesel engines are designed to reduce NOx, particulate matter, and sulfur emissions and to help States and local areas toward attainment of the 8‐hour ozone standard. In general, the EPA final rule standards are expected to achieve reductions in particulate matter and NOx emissions levels more than 95 percent and 90 percent, respectively, as well as the virtual elimination of sulfur oxides from off‐road engines meeting the new standards. Therefore, implementation of the Tier IV standards is expected to achieve a considerable reduction in particulate matter, NOx and sulfur emissions. The project’s mitigated on‐site excess cancer risks are summarized in Tables 4.3‐32, 4.3‐33, 4.3‐34, and 4.3‐35 in the DEIR. The tables indicate the project’s total mitigated onsite excess cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended risk threshold of 10 excess per million population.
Overall, the project’s total mitigated onsite excess cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended carcinogenic risk threshold with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR2. In addition, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended non-carcinogenic health risk threshold. Therefore, onsite risks would have a less than significant impact with mitigation.
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
i. Substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The project site consists primarily of vacant land that has been subject to a history of disturbance by human activity over time. The fauna of the project site and surrounding vicinity consists of species typical of disturbed, desert habitats in the Coachella Valley. Any off-site construction, including connections to utilities, would occur in previously developed/disturbed areas and hence would not significantly impact biological resources.
A number of sensitive plant species could occur on the site. The sensitive plant species that may occur on the site include (asterisk indicates species covered by the CVMSHCP): chaparral sandverbena, Borrego milk-vetch, Coachella Valley milk-vetch, gravel milk-vetch, glandular ditaxis, flat-seeded spurge, ribbed cryptantha, slender cottonheads, and narrow-leaf sandpaper-plant. All these species may occur in fine sands (dune sands) that are present in scattered locations of the project site, and especially on the southwest portion.
Six (6) wildlife species occur or could occur on-site including: Coachella giant sand treader cricket, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, burrowing owl, ferruginous
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1081 of 2236 29 hawk, and prairie falcon. It is assumed that all of these species could be present at the site, even though the quality of the habitat is relatively poor (due to agricultural uses and mowing) most of these species have probability to occur because of the fine sands and/or open conditions present at the site. Therefore, the project could result in significant impacts.
1. Mitigation Measures:
To avoid or substantially reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
BIO-1: Pre-construction Protocol Surveys for Rare Plants. If the project is not developed within two years after CEQA document approval, a preconstruction survey for Special-status plants shall be required. Surveys shall be limited to areas with the aeolian fine/dune sands on-site and shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance at the project site. Surveys shall be conducted by a Qualified Botanist as determined by CVCC and Wildlife Agencies. Special-status plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols, including the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (1983, rev. 2001). If a special-status plant is found on the site, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, the Applicant shall develop a mitigation and avoidance plan that incorporates avoiding plants during flowering times, topsoil salvage, seed collection, and/or relocation of plants.
A Qualified Botanist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post-degree experience conducting surveys for rare plants. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in special-status plant species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements.
BIO-2: Nesting Birds. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology
Public Hearing to Consider Denial or Approval of the Oasis at Indio Proj... Page 1082 of 2236 30 of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results.
Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Surveys. Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.