Indio extends gas station moratorium for one year, holds off on permanent rules

The Indio City Council voted Wednesday to extend its moratorium on new gas stations through June 3, 2027, declining to introduce a permanent zoning ordinance that city staff and the Planning Commission had prepared for that night’s meeting. The city’s existing moratorium, first adopted Dec. 3, 2025, and extended twice since, was set to expire June 18 — the day after the meeting — without further council action.

The moratorium grew out of an April 16, 2025, council directive asking staff to study the issue. A gap analysis presented to the Planning Commission later that year found that demand for fueling stations in Indio exceeds supply by an estimated $18 million, even though the city already counts 31 fueling stations, including projects that have been approved but not yet built.

The draft ordinance would have limited new stations to no more than two per intersection, set buffers along corridors including Indio Boulevard and Jefferson Street, and barred new stations next to homes, schools, child care centers and senior care facilities. It also would have required additional landscaping, at least one electric vehicle charger, fresh food sections in convenience stores of 1,000 square feet or larger, and round-the-clock security cameras.

The Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on the proposal May 13, had recommended dropping a planned restriction along Highway 111 pending required consultation with tribal governments, and adding parks, youth centers and community centers to the list of protected sites near which stations could not be built.

“If you did add the additional restriction from sensitive receptors near parks and youth centers, there would be basically 18 different locations where you wouldn’t be able to do a service station,” Brian Halvorson, community development director said, on top of roughly 800 parcels already restricted.

Rather than adopt the ordinance, councilmembers said they wanted more time, clearer maps and more public input — and noted a new council will be seated after the November election.

“We’re in June now. We’re not gonna meet ’til July, but with election in November, do we really want to throw something on the new council that comes in, no matter who it is?” Councilmember Glenn Miller said. “Or do we want to wait a couple months to get their feet wet before we start bringing them into a situation like this?”

Other councilmembers pointed to stations already approved but not yet built as evidence there was no urgency. “We’ve approved Walmart. They’re approved — Walmart could build tomorrow. We approved Maverick, they haven’t moved,” Mayor Pro Tem Waymond Fermon said. “I think the economy is dictating that, and the market is dictating that, so there’s no rush in passing this.”

Several residents urged the council to move forward with stronger protections rather than delay further. Loretta Perez, who said she runs a local autism support organization, said the proposed buffers didn’t adequately account for therapy centers where children spend hours at a time.

“We should not wait until another application comes forward near a school, park, neighborhood or a child center to find out,” she said. “Families deserve to know that the city is planning carefully and looking at the cumulative impacts.”

Another resident, Jackie Lopez, warned that without stronger oversight of new competition, the city risks costing itself long-standing station owners, citing one station that has operated at Clinton Street and Miles Street for 22 years. “That would be a loss for small business, for residents and for responsible planning in our city,” the resident said.

The extension required at least a four-fifths vote of the council under the state law governing interim moratoriums. The city attorney told the council the moratorium could legally run no more than two years from its original adoption. “We have two years total. How you cut that up is up to the council,” the city attorney said. The council did not set a firm date for reconsidering the permanent ordinance.

---