The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 03 05 CCo`� o 4 s a IrvcoxroxnTM y� City Council Agendas are G� of9 available on the City's web page @www.la-quinta.org City Council Agenda CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico - La Quinta, California 92253 Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 5, 2002 - 2 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Beginning Res. No. 2002-33 Ord. No. 367 ROLL CALL: Council Members: Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena II. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. III. CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a). COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT V. CITY OF LA QUINTA, CASE NUMBER INC 010827. NOTE: Time permitting, the City Council may conduct Closed Session discussions during the dinner recess. Additionally, if the City is considering acquisition of real property, persons identified as negotiating parties do not attend the closed session. RECONVENE AT 3:00 P.M. IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 001 City Council Agenda Page 1 March 5, 2002 V. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or matters that are not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. Please watch the timing device on the podium. For all Business Session matters or Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "request to speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the start of City Council consideration of that item. The Mayor will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak to come forward at the appropriate time. VI. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA VII. PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION TO DEPUTY DAVE ADAMS OF THE LA QUINTA POLICE DEPARTMENT. 2. PRESENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING FINANCIAL REPORTING. Vill. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 1. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE S.C.R.A.P. GALLERY. 2. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL. IX. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002. X. CONSENT CALENDAR Note: Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine in nature and will be approved by one motion unless requested for separate consideration by a member of the City Council or the public. 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED MARCH 5, 2002. 2. APPROVAL OF OVERNIGHT TRAVEL FOR THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND TWO MEMBERS OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD TO ATTEND THE 2002 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSOCIATION (CMTA) CONFERENCE APRIL 29, - MAY 3, 2002 IN MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA. 3. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 97-09. 00 City Council Agenda Page 2 March 5, 2002 4. APPROVAL OF THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR VARIOUS LEFT TURN POCKET MODIFICATIONS, PROJECT NO. 2001-09. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF CITYWIDE STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2000-04. 6. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT FOR TRACT 24197-5, MONTICELLO. 7. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN AND HENIGAR, INC. TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMENT AND GRADING PLAN CHECK SERVICES. 8. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RASA TO PROVIDE MAP CHECKING SERVICES. XI BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MARKETING SERVICES AND VILLAGE FAIRE EVENT PLANNING SERVICES. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 2. CONSIDERATION OF A $25,000 FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONTINUED SUMMER SERVICE BY AMERICAN AIRLINES TO THE PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 3. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP/INFORMATION COMMITTEE. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 5. CONSIDERATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEND OUT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR AUDITING SERVICES AND APPOINTMENT OF A SELECTION COMMITTEE. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 6. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO RAY LOPEZ AND ASSOCIATES FOR CITYWIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2000-01. A. MINUTE ORDER ACTION 0613 City Council Agenda Page 3 March 5, 2002 XII. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION OF THE VILLAGE FAIRE EVENTS IN THE VILLAGE OF LA QUINTA. XIII. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. CVAG COMMITTEE REPORTS 2. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP/INFORMATION COMMITTEE (PENA) 3. C.V. MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (PERKINS) 4. C.V. MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY (SNIFF) 5. DESERT RESORTS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (HENDERSON) 6. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AD HOC COMMITTEE (HENDERSON/ADOLPH) 7. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COMMITTEE (HENDERSON) 8. MUSEUM EXPANSION COMMITTEE (ADOLPH/SNIFF) 9. PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS CONVENTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY (HENDERSON) 10. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION 11. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREE LIBRARY SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DESERT LIBRARY ZONE ADVISORY BOARD (HENDERSON) 13. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PENA) 14. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY/SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP (PENA) 15. CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2002 16. INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES DATED JANUARY 9, 2002. XIV. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1 . CITY MANAGER A. RESPONSE(S) TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 2. CITY ATTORNEY 3. CITY CLERK A. REPORT ON UPCOMING EVENTS 4. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIRECTOR 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 6. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR 7. FINANCE DIRECTOR 8. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER 9. POLICE CHIEF 10. FIRE CHIEF XV. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION OF ADDING A SHADE COVERING FOR THE DAY WORKERS PICK UP SITE. (COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS) RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M. XVI. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak form and limit your comments to three (3) minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. 0011 City Council Agenda Page 4 March 5, 2002 XVII. PRESENTATIONS XI. CONTINUATION OF BUSINESS SESSION 7. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE LA QUINTA MUSEUM EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED A THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA AND AVENIDA NAVARRO. A. RESOLUTION ACTION XVIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "request to speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the start of City Council consideration of that item. The Mayor will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta City Council/ Redevelopment Agency before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the projects(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the public hearing. 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIF). Continued from the meeting of February 19, 2002. A. RESOLUTION ACTION 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 38.4 ACRES INTO 130 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET. APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. Continued from the meeting of February 5, 2002. A. RESOLUTION ACTION 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-440, NORTH EAST FIRE STATION. APPLICANT CITY OF LA QUINTA. A. RESOLUTION ACTION XIX. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting, commencing with closed session at 2:00 P.M. and open session at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 19, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. 00Pa City Council Agenda Page 5 March 5, 2002 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting of Tuesday, March 5, 2002, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce and at Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, March 1, 2002. DATED: March 1, 2002 J REEK, CIVIC City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICES The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025, 24-hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the City Council, during a City Council Meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 3:00 p.m session or the 7:00 p.m session for distribution. City Council Agenda Page 6 March 5, 2002 poj,,�- ct,-tom ma.� THE LEGEND OF LA QUINTA By Betty Cheney and Barbara Paresi 0,0 Dedicated To the memory of Bob Milby, deceased writing teacher who helped. Acknowledgments Sandy Craig who helped me in historical facts for authenticity. Joyce Pena who helped program the music on the computer. PROLOGUE In lovely La Quinta in eighteen sixty-five The fortunate fahuiilas who were then alive Wore clothing of skins from local rabbits and deer Women gathered seeds for their survival needs Which they then ground in holes as their daily roles They dug with large shells very deep Indian wells Providing necessary water to their larder Men hunted here, with bow and arrow, deer Rabbits for food and fur whenever it did occur Cahuillas spent hot summer in mountain wonder Returned to La Quinta here for many a year! Cahuillas called present day La Quinta- Happy Hollow 3 0 0) n O C'.�ivo� Cy 7 //,,/, -a- -gpL- )4/-7LO m W/) r, �r) 6 /-/) r, /y-C. / le9 /6- Of �o le?, r Y 07 C- 601",-1 A57 apr // /,/// ",;/ r A oio A n P/170 A,4 6 /10 /o/ op n, c- A46�,� Xe 0/7 w el yo � qo74/rd glVcl l i9.9- xn/ 4 -TAP IV Ale, 01I _ C'M�Nor- C' AY, /d o r "1/,o 'Ove IA9- // 6' 40e 01 " THE LEGEND OF LA QUINTA" EXT. INDIAN WELLS STATION Sound effect of horses' hooves accompanying song as Butterfield stagecoach reaches Indian Wells after days ride from Palm Springs. The pack animals and horses are tired so miners are forced to walk along beside their horses singing. "MINERS' SONG" Hurry, hurry to the river Where there's lots of gold and silver Filthy riches will then be mine Gold to mine; then all mine CHORUS Gold fever has got hold of me From it, I will never be free Gold, gold in my hands to hold All I want is gold, gold, gold Got my boot, jacket, tough pants Lighted lantern, now confident With pick and dynamite to find gold Then the good life will unfold REPEAT CHORUS Women, women big or small I'll happily love them all Buy them jewels to their taste Hurry, hurry no time to waste. REPEAT CHORUS B. Arrival of three would -be -miners from the East. Four miners leave stagecoach and meet the three waiting men. All are carrying lighted lanterns. LI 013 DON Hi, I'm Don and with me are: Flap, Shandy and Randy THE GENERAL Hi, I'm the General and with me are: Cactus Kid and Marcos They shake hands and the General strums his banjo and starts singing. I come from Alabama with my banjo on my knee. I'm going to the river that thar gold to see Oh, my buddies don't you cry for me For I got nuttin' left, the South I had to flee DON Don moves in and Harmoneers accompany as he sings "She'll be coming `round the mountain." I've been coming down the mountain to come here I'll be going to the river, give a cheer, Yipee! Bodie mining up there proved too cold I now want to find that thar gold That's how I want my life to here unfold. SHANDY, FLAP AND RANDY (Shady, Flap and Randy move into the spotlight.) We're the Harmoneers heading for the river to entertain. We're in love with Adeline. With a pitch pipe they give their notes. Sweet Adeline, my Adeline At night, dear heart, for you I pine In all my dreams your fair face beams You're the flower of my heart Sweet Adeline CACTUS KID Hi, I'm Cactus Kid and I've left "The Yellow Rose of Texas" to find the Yellow Gold of Arizona. There's a yellow rose in Texas that I have left behind I'm going to the river that yellow gold to find and whenever I find it, I'll marry that yellow rose enjoy the good life and whatever else then flows. S 01 �� MARCOS Hi' I'm Marcos and I'm from "South of the Border" down Mexico way." South of the Border down Mexico way So many changes came suddenly there to stay No future for me there so I had to move North of the Border for my fortune to improve Aye, yai, yai, yai Aye, yai, yai, yai Aye, yai, yai, yai Our horses are tired and thirsty. We must find water soon. CACTUS KID We ain't seen no rain in this God forsaken desert since we got here. We need a good old-fashioned gully -washer like we have in the south. MARCOS Hardly ever rains. But, there's plenty of water hereabouts. Let's play poker while we eat before sleeping. They sit around the table eating and drinking in lantern lights. DON While we are playing poker, whoever wins tells a tall tale or an exciting one. Agreed! All agree by yelling "yes". They start playing and after winning, The General in his Southern drawl says; THE GENERAL My grandfather, a Captain of a merchant ship told me that once in the North Atlantic a hundred foot wave slammed his ship on its side and by a miracle the ship righted itself and went on its way. !1 01 ALL Scary, wow' They play another poker hand and Don wins. [Dieu Hey man, that's scary but I've got a better water story. In early April, you are looking at thirty feet of snow in the high Sierras and the temperature rises to the nineties. So much water rushes to the rivers, they overflow their banks for weeks. What a flood! The miners are -the only happy people. They can't wait for the rivers to recede so they can look for gold. Of course, they never tell anybody what they find. They continue playing the hand of poker and Marcos wins. MARCOS The last story reminds me of what I heard happened in Alaska. You've heard of the streets of heaven paved with gold, well, one beach there was filled with gold that for a long time had been washed down by huge rivers. The first miners there found it and became rich. Can you all imagine the thrill of just collecting the gold? DON That's why large rivers are so important to finding gold. They continue playing a hand of poker and Cactus Kid wins. CACTUS KID I've to this dream that when I mine at the river, I'll find a lucky strike; go back to Texas and marry my Yellow Rose; settle down with a huge spread of cattle and land. MARCOS Gold Fever has affected all of us. They continue playing a hand of poker and Shandy wins. '1 016 SHANDY You all know our group entertain with singing songs and playing music. We have heard tales of lucky miners tipping some of their winnings. Our dream is that will happen for us at the river. Money is scarce and gold dust will be our pay. We'll also enjoy the Colorado River. Hey guys, it's late. Let's get our bedrolls for sleep. Tomorrow, we'll head to the river. SCENE II AT INDIAN WELLS Marcos and Don arise at daybreak, pack their horses and head for wells to fill canteen. Upon arriving Cactus Flower is coming up from the well. Verbena waits. MARCOS You're so pretty. Let me carry your jug. He tries to kiss her but she backs away. Suddenly a terrible windstorm begins. CACTUS FLOWER Verbena, we know what to do when these windstorms begin. You help the horses and I'll guide the men far behind the outcropping of the mountains where we'll he sheltered from the storm. MARCOS I'm Marcos and my friend is Don. We are traveling to the Coloradc to find gold. What's your name? Who are the others? CACTUS FLOWER My name is Cactus Flower. My cousins, Verbena, Yucca, Primrose, Daisy and Sage. This is our well and we are here to fill the ollas after coming down from the high mountains. Marcos shakes each maiden's hand and gazes lovingly into Cactus Flower's eyes. MARCOS I've never seen anything like the fury of this sandstorm. You can't see where you're going and the ground is eerie. E 01.E SANTA ROSAS - BY: BETTE CBENEY _ LVNorm■ 2. AAL— • You • sas the speakto me raln • WANEW ■ r..l=�� WX►s a� _ r 1. Te me all your 2. Then a - round me 1. Let me feel your 2. Big, - horn .�hecp graze 1. Then I'll 2. Al - so 3. 'All life's LLrN — -� I k tru- ly squir - rel ten - sions Ra - s his - to - ry plants can grow ma - gic vibes on your slope feel a - lire and ante - lor)e will }l - lease YWA s,y r w ► ! f r e I ex'se- j * - I I� DON The snowstorms up at Bodie Mine at 9000ft were ferocious. You couldn't see anything then, either. Marcos unfastens saddlebags and serves the maidens, and Verbena. He tenderly places a piece of dried meat into Cactus Flower's mouth. CACTUS FLOWER It tastes like some of our meat. Thank you. VERBENA I love the taste. It's so long since I've eaten. We just came down from the high mountains and needed lots of water for our tribe here in the desert. It is so easy to reach it in our well here. I'm so sad because my Brave Heart and baby died on the way down the mountain. They are to be cremated when we return to the village. Cactus Flower is helping me with my grief and her family is taking care of my children. MARCOS Does Verbena need help with the burial? CACTUS FLOWER We'll see. We're lucky to have arrived at the well before the terrible sandstorm, as it is so easy to get lost. Cactus Flower walks to the outcroppings where the Indian maidens found shelter during the sandstorm and sings " Santa Rosas" SANTA ROSAS Santa Rosas, speak to me Tell me all your history let me feel your magic vibes Then I'll truly feel alive You collect the rain and snow Then around me plants can grow Bighorn sheep graze on your slope Also deer and antelope Santa Rosas, grant me peace All life's tensions will release It Santa Rosas beneath you I lie There I'll remain `til my spirit will fly SCENE IV ENCOUNTER CONTINUED Marcos walks to Cactus Flower as she finishes the song and tenderly lifts her and then Verbena onto his horse. He ties the ollas to the horse. Cactus Flower points the way to the village ( La Quinta) Marcos and the other maidens walk beside. Before arriving at the village, they meet Chief Torres and Verbena's children who rush to hug her. CHIEF TORRES Who is the white man? CACTUS FLOWER He is a miner. We met at the well during the sandstorm. CHIEF TORRES We never include an outsider at the sacred burial. I was so worried. Brave Heart and his and Verbena's son are to be buried in our sacred burial grounds. They will join the Great Spirit and all who have died from this village. So many died this past summer in the mountains and are buried there. I've heard you miners do a clog dance. Please join us at the braves dancing and bring your dancing miners. MARCOS This is such a lovely land. These mountains are so inspiring. I'll just walk to the burial site and return to the stations. We'll come to dance. CHIEF TORRES Many Cahuillas call this area the Garden of Eden. Everyone is barefoot as their feet touch Mother Earth. Young men carry Brave Heart with the baby cradled in his arms on poles with blankets. During the walk Marcos and Cactus Flower are in deep conversation speaking very quietly. MARCOS From the first moment I saw you my heart fluttered. You are so beautiful. o CACTUS FLOWER My father has arranged a union with an Indian Family in Yuma. He would have sent me to Yuma to the Chief s Kish for Eagle Eye but we were in the high mountains. Then there's Verbena's Brave Heart and their baby's cremation. I'm sure after the Celebrations of my brother's first hunt, I'll be sent back to Yuma. MARCOS We must find a way to escape during the Celebrations when everyone is busy. I must talk to you and convince you to be mine. I'll get a Padre from Indio to be at the well where he'll unite us, querido. I love you and I'll make you happy. We belong together. Meet me at the well when dancing of the braves begins. CACTUS FLOWER My father will be furious. He expects me to do everything he says. We must be very careful. I'll have to get to Verbena's help. They arrive at the burial site where the maidens start keening. Marcos leaves. Chief Torres gives the Prayer. We feel your presence, Mother Earth As barefoot we walk in the dirt Mother Earth to you we bring A brave, his son. Now replenishing. From dirt to dirt from whence we came Nothing in nature remains the same Live each day as though it's our last Before long it becomes our past. Oh Great Spirit to you we bring Two spirits to take under thy wing May they watch over our lives here Guide us always throughout the year Our hearts are heavy as our tears fall Heal us, help us, hear our call When we wake at morning's dawn Show us how to carry on. 0�� OPENING OF SECOND ACT Everyone busy to get village in shape Doing whatever jobs it will take Maidens singing while preparing food Men repairing Kish with fresh fronds and wood All making ready for celebration to be Several Bands gather together to see! 12 a2-` W H Al w E DO • . I vwl�pa� CID G4inc,( Sc'c"�5,�<< P�i�� Tken rn� a $AL, src 'P�ck p�d( r �.:, p rct� ciQ 'thc 41�a�" ��, G3as ki-�r� o „ ias v) `vif^ • \ (��- YY�: S Ynoul*x-'f,Lj n16r �.. �i �...1 �.. - a.. • ` w �,�i • N�.l - r i •tJr� L1�CLi� u CHIEF TORRES After so much sadness, we must return and prepare for the celebration of my son's first successful hunt which has provided food and clothing for our people. A few minutes of flute playing. INTERMISSION ACT II - SCENE I The scene opens with six maidens working at various jobs. They are singing. "WHAT WE DO" Pick seeds, pick plants that's what we do Grind seeds, boil plants then make a stew Wrap reeds, shape clay. That's what we do Baskets, ollas, then fill them, too CHORUS Mountains, Mountains everywhere Wonderful, wonderful fresh, clean air Vistas, vistas to see forever La Quinta, I'll love you ever Sew skins, mend skins. That's what we do Cover needed -not to see through Babies babies. That's what we do Keep tribe growing. Not be a few REPEAT CHORUS Braves enter carrying deer skin and palm fronds to repair kish. They get busy working. MARKSMAN WITH A BOW It is so thrilling to be honored with a celebration. You, braves, helped me chase this deer up a dead-end canyon where my arrow hit him. We needed deer meat for food and the skins for clothing. HUNTER Yes, we were lucky. Several tribes will bring maidens here. I hope I 1,8 find one to arrange a union. I'm eighteen now and hopefully am a good hunter and able to take care of a family. 1 love celebrations. I'm also a good dancer and plenty of food is good. SCENE II - GETTING READY All young and old prepare to dress for the celebration. Painting their bodies with tattoos and colorful markings. The maidens retire to their kishes to put on their best skins or clothing since some cloth has been traded to them. SCENE III - CELEBRATION AT VILLAGE Aqua Caliente band arrives and then Yuma Tribe arrives. Chief Torres welcomes friends to the Celebration. He sees that they are seated where they can see the dancing and hear the music Indian Flutist is playing. CHIEF TORRES Here is my son, Marksman -with -a -bow, Chief of Agua Caliente, who we celebrate today. It is his first successful hunt. He brought back a deer and it will provide food and clothing. AQUA CALIENTE CHIEF We are honored, Marksman with -a -Bow, to be at your celebration. Living so close and Cahuilla Band, too. This is the end of your boyhood and you are now a man. May the Great Spirit give you a special blessing. We have brought cakes and fruit for the celebration. YUMA CHIEF This is a special day in your life. I remember when my son had his Celebration. My Eagle Eye can't wait for beautiful Cactus Flower to be his and be part of my family. I've brought cloth traded from the aver as well as com, and vegetables for the celebration. We are so lucky to have so much water in Yuma. MARKSMAN -WITH -A -BOW It is great to have you both here. We are like brothers. We are so happy. May your spirit find joy and peace today. Thank you for honoring me. The young braves in paint begin to very slowly dance. Six miners arrive and 14 are greeted by Chief Torres. CHIEF TORRES Welcome! Welcome to the celebration of my son, Marksman-With-a- Bow's first successful hunt. Marcos told me that you do a dance with your boots. We'll enjoy your dance after my braves finish. SHANDY We've just returned from mining so we can take a little time off. At the mine, we had plenty of time to dance as it is our main evening fun. Here is a small gift.(Shady pours out gold dust from a pouch) MOONEY We have found gold so we will be soon settling down. Thank you for inviting us. What is that sound with the braves' dancing? CHIEF TORRES My band has lived here for a very long time. Our Bird singers chant our history in song. My people are very happy but many of them have gone to the Great Spirit in the past moons. ^t' While rattles' pant the Indian braves are dancing, Verbena is sewing a dress for Cactus Flower with the cloth brought from Yuma. Cactus Flower changes to miner's clothing to disguise herself to flee to Indian Wells and Marcos. Chief Torres sends Marksman with -a -Bow to watch her every movement. MARKSMAN -WITH -A -BOW Yucca, where is Cactus Flower? I can't find her. YUCCA I think I saw her over by the Yuma Chief. You know she's to leave with his tribe after the celebration. Excuse, me, I have some sewing to finish. During the conversation, Cactus Flower disguised as a miner wearing very colorful shirt -slips into the crowd and moves away from the celebration. Marksman tells Chief Torres that he can't find Cactus Flower so the Chief quietly has him and Hunter, two of his fastest riders and best tracker look for her. They leap on horses and head in two directions, north and east. MARKSMAN -WITH -A -BOW 16 We must not fail to find her. The chase continues as they leave the celebration. Voices are heard in the distance very softly. Hunter returns to the celebration knowing the chief will be furious. Meanwhile Cactus Flower, on one of the miner's horses reaches Marcos at the well. She sheds the miner's clothing to her very simple skins. SCENE IV - LOVE ENCOUNTER, INDIAN WELLS MARCOS My darling, I knew you would come, We love one another and soon will be joined by the Padre. Marcos takes Cactus Flower into his arms, kisses her lovingly and passionately. MARCOS I've learned to farm and I promise to faithfully love you and provide food and shelter for you. I'm so happy here as this is where I met you. We'll go near the river to farm. Water will be our gold. The Padre readies for the ceremony. Arrival of Verbena and her children. She brings a colorful wedding long gown she has sewn from cloth brought from Yuma along with Indian jewelry and a headband. They slip behind a rock and dress her. CEREMONY CHEROKEE CHANT Cactus Flower's brother, Marksman -with -a -Bow arrives after tracking her to Indian Wells. MARKSMAN -WITH -A -BOW There you are. I must bring you back to father to send to Eagle Eye. MARCOS She's united to me. Marcos rushes to Marksman -with -Bow and they fight fiercely. Suddenly the knife Marksman has brought is thrown to the ground. The padre rushes to pick it up. 16 041217 ' �ReR�ms IOL") , G/lxole r Ss�; lGs i��rr�r � �� h lue- Ou r rep o � e, � ��dll�/r��f 023 0 v 6 4",I o ✓ At S�i'/i/ /'i rem /'u� • /c� ��/o� Gl�1�i1c% —7" u !`�alvl i 40E�ri- so e -rer p tw) / , // 46 e- A! o /--z-. 0��e c r'o u s �� Af6��/r -� i re, u /-) �26 cJ / VCR �e- • �` /1 ��/n l��/7 i ! � fit` -� r^/ {��' /'"� I !}� ��G .".�� /..,> G//� ��} r r�"/. 00.903 1,de.6 44Y-) � �do1?s� ze�'q 16- 40 6e /t/� /' 6 u y c� /��171/i1 //lJ /%/ /��G , //!�-.�'� G7 yej J �/ 'r �/1 �(! ✓� C ri /% �f" % /%% % / L-O/ 03� x". blvos .4AJCI /I /-) C) /'.0 'P &)I �� Mrs Al o Y6 �e A y � 44 /I/oc S /7�us 'cry• e tit ln' 6• TO Our` C'/'O�i' ��L' 69�- Odd_- dy // i-1 .'/�i�"l Ci �" f. %� " °; �/i�� /� 11 is � i'• A-v 0 3 CACTUS FLOWER Oh, brother, I love Marcos. We are united and my happiness is with him. I don't want to go to Yuma and Eagle Eye. Remember the time when the rattlesnake was about to bite you and 1 grabbed a stick and killed it, thus saving your life. Tell father I left on the stagecoach which I will do now. My life and spirit belong to Marcos who has promised to love and provide for me. MARKSMAN -WITH -A -BOW Sister. Goodbye Cactus Flower and Marcos sing: "RIVER OF DREAMS" MARCOS We'll go near the river where our dreams will come true. Where we'll be living there under skies mostly blue. Our great love like the powerful river will flow Overflowing with happiness ever so! CACTUS FLOWER Beloved, I want to be near you forever. Nothing in my life my love for you can sever With you beside me in all we then do The greatest contentment will be ours through & through. BOTH Very happily we'll now move near the river Where to our crops, water will be the giver. Our love through many future years will greater grow. As all around us the mighty rivers does flow! Chorus after 1 St and 3`d verse. Run, rushing river, run wild and wonderful. Making the dry desert so very beautiful River water will be more precious that gold. Making all of our fondest dreams there unfold. t 0 3') 12001 Betty Cheney and Barbara Paresi note. Encling narration The river in 1865 was untamed No Dams l(s WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ITEM: Mr. Tom Genovese, City Manager City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 J Dear Mr. G ovese. FF C.MhqA f eJmll Indio, CA 92201 (760) 863-7777 As a leader in our community, we would like to offer you the opportunity to partner with us in highlighting artistic talent and providing quality environmental responsibil- ity. The Waste -To -Wonders Art Challenge slated for April 2002 is a valley -wide art competition which encourages both professional, amateur and student artists to showcase their work using found materials. Prizes will be awarded to artists and their work will be exhibited to the public at an exceptional event held at The Gar- dens on El Paseo on April 13, 2002 in conjunction with their World Tour of Wine and Music Concert Series The purpose of this annual event is to highlight the artistic endeavors of valley resi- dents who work with recycled materials and to stress the importance of recycling. The Waste -To -Wonders Art Challenge will present artist efforts in a regional and most public forum. Proceeds from this event will benefit the S.C.R.A.P. Gallery's re- cycling and environmental education program for all students in the Coachella Val- ley. To date, the Waste -To -Wonders Art Challenge has received the support from the cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Indio and Palm Springs. The October 9th, 2001 Desert Sun tells us that only Coachella, Palm Desert and Palm Springs reached their recycling goals of 50% by the end of 2000. Your city's support of this event will help educate and encourage families and businesses to recycle. You can show your support in many ways, such as Contributions in cash or in kind to the event City's sponsorship and name on 1st prize cash awards ($1,000) Publicize in your City's Publication Attendance at the event Appointing your city's representative to the planning or judging committee Please feel free to call the S.C.R.A.P. Gallery for more details. av Karen Riley Executive Director Marily lassman President ,_ the S.C.R.A.P. Gall" ;s a 501(c) (3) nonprofit or9an;$afion For more information , � e r C...ajA Awards in each caiegorW in please Call ss, each divijion. (12) CaiA Awardi in a# (76o) 863 - 7 7 7 7 for the Feb 2? 02 03:03p LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOC WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ITEM: Desert Sands Unified School District December 12, 2001 Dear Mayor Pena, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your past support. of La Quinta High School Football. Everyone knows we have the very best fan support and community involvement of any program around. It is because of this community support, , that we. have been able to put the very best football team in the valley on the field. Beinv, the first football team in valley history to win Back to Back CIF titles is incredible. It is also a great tribute to players, coaches, and our support staff, that have worked so hard to make this happen. As a reward to them for their tremeldous achievement we will be purchasing Championship rings. Many of our players cannot afford the cost of these rings and we refuse to leave anyone out. The total cost of the rings will exceed. $15,000.00 We have solicited our area merchants, and now we are asking you and the city of La Quinta to help us with this much deserved endeavor. If you could see your way clear to donate funds for these rings it would do a lot to take the financial burden off the kids. We will be starting a sponsorship program that we hope you will want to be a part of Enclosed you will find a flyer outlining the tiered system we are promoting. A plaque will be displayed prominently at our gym listing all the donors, as well as the amount and category it fits under. We will also be taking out an ad in the Desert Sun displaying this same information for all to see. In addition any donation you make will be tax deductible as we are a non-profit organization. This football team has been a tremendous source of conuxnunity pride, and it would be a shame if any of these verb deserving people were left out because they can't afford it. Again, I hope you will decide to participate ire this very worthy cause. Thanki o4 in advance for your generosity, Dan Armstro 'g Head Football Coach/Athletic Director La Quinta High School "Blackhawks" Desert Sands Unified School District 79-255 Westward Ho Drive - La Quinta, California 92253 s, (760) 772-4150 Fax (760) 772-4166 • Fax (760) 771-4171 02-27-02 13:51 RECEIVED FROM:760 772 4166 F.01 'fv Feb 27 02 03:04p LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL 760 772 4166 p.2 [AckhAwk PRoud SPONSORS ChAMIAON'S CLUB $I000& AbOVE TouchdowN Club s5oo & AbovE SA"J'au vizu" spowow I&W FiEld GOAL Club $300 & AbovE sAoZute aspadow zuae EXTRA POINT Clubs, oo & AbovE SAWM4 7f4w SA&i"w Zzme FIRST Dowry Club sio.0$99 SAmiew ZuNe SA"Jaw Ztwe ThANks To All OF You FOR A 03;7 ChAMPIONShip ThAT WILL LAST A LIFETIME 4 INCONPMTM 44 ^ 945 AGENDA CATEGORY: OF COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: MARCH 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Demand Register Dated March 5, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Demand Register Dated March 5, 2002 BACKGROUND: Prepaid Warrants: 48415 - 484301 18,774.47 48431 - 484421 5355327.03 48443 - 484441 576.87 Wire Transfers} 3,591,491.50 P/R 8322 - 83891 995133.95 P/R Tax Transfers} 29,990.37 Payable Warrants: 48445 - 485351 263,315.57 $455385609.76 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Demand of Cash -City $194561301.62 Demand of Cash -RDA $3,082,308.14 BUSINESS SESSION CONSENT CALENDAR STUDY SESSION PUBLIC HEARING 0 3-3 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK TRANSACTIONS 2/13/02 - 2/26/02 2/15/02 WIRE TRANSFER - DEFERRED COMP $5,243.02 2/15/02 WIRE TRANSFER - PERS $9,499.51 2/15/02 WIRE TRANSFER - CREDIT UNION $5,171.70 3/1/02 WIRE TRANSFER - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT $489,269.13 3/1/02 WIRE TRANSFER - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT - REDEVELOPMENT AGEN, $3,082,308.14 TOTAL WIRE TRANSFERS OUT $3,591,491.50 033 002 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 4:30PM 02/25/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** PAYMENT AMOUNT 48445 02/25/02 &01641 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO 21.00 48446 02/25/02 &01642 BARBARA BARBA 150-00 48447 02/25/02 &01643 DIANE DIVINE 55.00 48448 02/25/02 &01644. KELLY KOGER 65.00 48449 02/25/02 &01645 ELISE LEW 25.00 48450 02/25/02 &01646 PATRICK LUCAS 47.00 48451 02/25/02 &01647 ANGELICA TORRES 3.00 48452 02/25/02 &01649 MARYANNE LYON 10.00 48453 02/25/02 &01650 ROBIN POTENZA 120.00 48454 02/25/02 &01651 LISA WEBB 100.00 48455 02/25/02 ALL100 ALLIANCE SERVICE STATION 614.59 48456 02/25/02 AME100 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL 101.34 48457 02/25/02 AMS200 AMSTERDAM PRINTING 1083.03 48458 02/25/02 AND007 GARY ANDERSEN 60.00 48459 02/25/02 BES130 BEST LUBE N TUNE 50.00 48460 02/25/02 BRI100 BRINKS INC 300.00 48461 02/25/02 BSG100 B & S GRAPHICS 4894.87 48462 02/25/02 CAD010 CADET UNIFORM SUPPLY 104.81 48463 02/25/02 CAL031 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION 399.00 48464 02/25/02 CAR300 CARQUEST 122.87 48465 02/25/02 CDW050 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 1358.09 48466 02/25/02 C00300 VALI COOPER & ASSOC INC 17963.62 48467 02/25/02 COR150 CORPORATE EXPRESS 178.84 48468 02/25/02 COT100 PETER COTA-ROBLES 477.62 48469 02/25/02 DAN200 DANONE WATERS OF NORTH 47.07 48470 02/25/02 DES018 DESERT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 89.70 48471 02/25/02 DES052 DESERT SANDS UNIFIED 200.00 48472 02/25/02 DES060 DESERT SUN PUBLISHING CO 4327.08 48473 02/25/02 DES065 DESERT TEMPS INC 5234.75 48474 02/25/02 DIE050 DIETERICH POST 105.07 48475 02/25/02 DIS075 DISPLAY SALES 3877.76 48476 02/25/02 DOU010 DOUBLE PRINTS 1 HR PHOTO 12.91 48477 02/25/02 ELM100 ELMS EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC 1402.55 48478 02/25/02 EXP200 EXPRESS DETAIL 440.00 48479 02/25/02 FED010 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 481.38 48480 02/25/02 FIR017 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 168.72 48481 02/25/02 FIS050 FISHER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 33.40 48482 02/25/02 GAR040 GARZA TURF & POWER EQUIP 45.20 48483 02/25/02 GAR005 GARNER IMPLEMENT CO 61.42 48484 02/25/02 GAS010 GASCARD INC 20.00 48485 02/25/02 GCS010 GCS WESTERN POWER & EQUIP 1319.80 48486 02/25/02 GE0010 GEORGE'S GOODYEAR 69.23 48487 02/25/02 GRA007 W W GRAINGER INC 415.13 48488 02/25/02 GRA010 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO 604.23 48489 02/25/02 HEN100 HENRY'S GLASS CO 330.00 48490 02/25/02 HIC200 RENE' HICKEY 227.50 48491 02/25/02 HIG010 HIGH TECH IRRIGATION INC 116.56 003 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 4:30PM 02/25/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 2 CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NO. NAME PAYMENT AMOUNT 48492 02/25/02 HIM100 DAVID L HIMMLER 672.00 48493 02/25/02 HOA010 HUGH HOARD INC 275.50 48494 02/25/02 HOM030 HOME DEPOT 161.33 48495 02/25/02 HUG100 HUGHES, PERRY & ASSOC 18940.16 48496 02/25/02 IMP100 IMPACT SCIENCES INC 1661.91 48497 02/25/02 INT013 INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY 907.00 48498 02/25/02 JAS100 JAS PACIFIC 12553.52 48499 02/25/02 KRI100 BRUCE KRIBBS CONSTRUCTION 125.00 48500 02/25/02 KUD100 DAN KUDLA 84.00 48501 02/25/02 LAQ100 LA QUINTA VOLUNTEER FIRE 292.50 48502 02/25/02 L00010 LOCK SHOP INC 67.48 48503 02/25/02 MAR010 MARTIN & CHAPMAN CO 53.49 48504 02/25/02 MIL030 MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL 624.80 48505 02/25/02 MIR010 MIRASOFT INC 100.08 48506 02/25/02 MOS100 CHARLES P MOSLEY 623.63 48507 02/25/02 NAW010 RON NAWROCKI 2000.00 48508 02/25/02 NIC101 NICKERSON & ASSOC INC 13198.00 48509 02/25/02 OFF005 OFFICE DEPOT INC 1766.09 48510 02/25/02 PAL010 PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESRT 111363.30 48511 02/25/02 PER010 RONALD A PERKINS 26.60 48512 02/25/02 PF0100 THERESA PFOTENHAUER 255.50 48513 02/25/02 PRI020 THE PRINTING PLACE 3511.58 48514 02/25/02 PR0005 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE IND 2935.50 48515 02/25/02 PUR100 PURKISS ROSE-RSI 750.00 48516 02/25/02 RAL050 RALPHS GROCERY CO 29.98 48517 02/25/02 RAS035 CHARLOTTE RASHMI-GRAFF 1162.00 48518 02/25/02 RECO15 RECWARE BY ACTIVE.COM 1069.63 48519 02/25/02 RIV020 RIV CNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLR 607.00 48520 02/25/02 ROB175 H G ROBB 392.00 48521 02/25/02 SMA010 SMART & FINAL 131.29 48522 02/25/02 SOU007 SOUTHWEST NETWORKS, INC 3867.50 48523 02/25/02 SOU100 SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICL INC 1955.00 48524 02/25/02 STA045 STAN'S AUTO TECH 40.94 48525 02/25/02 TKDO10 T.K.D. ASSOCIATES INC 443.75 48526 02/25/02 TOP010 TOPS'N BARRICADES INC 3627.18 48527 02/25/02 TRE100 JUAN TREVINO 250.00 48528 02/25/02 TRI100 TRI STATE LAND SURVEYORS 25080.00 48529 02/25/02 TRU010 TRULY NOLEN INC 192.00 48530 02/25/02 VER050 FREDRICO VERDUGO 250.00 48531 02/25/02 VON010 VON'S C/O SAFEWAY INC 6.38 48532 02/25/02 WES009 WEST COAST TRANSPORTATION 525.00 48533 02/25/02 WOR100 WORLDCOM 1405.00 48534 02/25/02 XER012 XEROX CORPORATION 662.81 48535 02/25/02 XER050 XESYSTEMS INC 735.00 CHECK TOTAL 263,315.57 041 004 z Q . N M v' Ln lD r 1.t) M r1 N M l0 a H o z N O N \ -1 N O W x U H m .- m --1 m 4 m ,--1 m -1 Ol 4 Ql � N N N N N N N N N N N N N (� < m N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H N H H a a OD .. M H z W x H z D o o N 0 0 O Ln 0 0 Ln 0 0 to 0 0 O 0 0 1f) N 0 0 r C 0 0 M 0 0 O .-i 0 0 O l0 0 0 O w Cl 0 O to o o O Ln rn Ln c --1 ?1 a O r> 0 r-1 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 x -: W N 0 o 1n 0 Ln ,n 0 1n lD 0 Un N 0 r �r 0 r� 0 o .1 0 o N m O 0 o O > 0 ,� a w ❑ -, U H a F H w w a cn z O z H 1-1 0 U) to H 0 U) H O to U1 to to H 0 to H U) O cn H co O to H En 0 to H to O to U) U) H U) O x H x O to Q W U 11 C1 to H O < �4 H Q .a H .a FC a E+ FC H a H a FC H a H a FC a H s LY. FC Z H Q W. x U x 11 O a 11 m a O U a O U a O U U x O U a O U a O U x O U a O U U a O a s O O > z cr U ❑ ❑ z z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ z ❑ ❑ z z ❑ ❑ z z ❑ ❑ z z ❑ ❑ z z ❑ z ❑ ❑ z z ❑ z ❑ ❑ z z a 11 U) w ❑ w w> o w> w 0 w> w a w a w> w a w w> 0 w w> :D w w> =) w w> ❑❑ w w w> ❑ w a w w> a w v, ❑ w x w a w a w a w s w x w x w rz w x w a w x W a w x ❑ w W w U W ❑ a \ t" O > 1 z > z w m x M N OD Q M Lr) M N M O M N l0 .-1 M N Ln O OD r co O C' r W 0 I O lD H ❑ F-i H D z .-1 m 110 C' lD C' l0 C' r C' lD C' d' r r r r V' r 'v I- H x N z a < m w m a 1 0 o w H rz o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r �D W m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Urn c Ln v c 110 z �D 0 M r tM r M r M C' OD M Ci' r M C' r M T r M Q' r M Q' r M C' r M V' r M C' m r-1 l0 H z O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1-4 D 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 In v� O o � 0 � 0 � o � O -i o � O O -4 o � 0 -4 0 - 0 0 � r � LO z 0 H H Q M H � O O U') O W w u Q > W W < W 0 N N w 1 W Cam- LL' H CY. z t-1 > LY. W PG W U O H �+ z W z W w to 1-a z pq H cn Q 1-1 ❑ 0 x 0 x w a x U w z O a O s m W m W w U Ol �. cr. x U m w z a a w to H Ri a W < Y4 z F-1 z H 3 Q a Q O 0 `m a Q H a W s W 11 ra H Q z x no 00 m to F i to " a a] cn H [w z w ❑ x x w a < a s z 0 a > r 1 N tM a t. v Ln l0 -CTt. r m CD uO u) r-i u D -4 Ln O Cl U H U 11 0 ,� 0 -4 0 ,-4 0 ,� 0 ,-1 0 �--1 0 1-1.� 0 0 e-4 0 r1 o .--1 O 1-4 o .4 ®� 1W .7 FC U zs w zs w �s w ors w �s w �s w w Q 005 z o m rn r H m N M m 0 -+ c M c H O z N O \ Ln N \ (N N O W a x U H ,� H H H CT)N H N H N N H Ql N H N N E-4 r-4 N H H N H N N N H N N N H N N E-+ Ol N H N N H N N H a a 00 �r M H M O O O O O O N OD O O 0 O 0 O OD N OD ('M W z M r 1 O M OD O lD O Lr) O O Q m I- � N a> Ln O q:T N l0 m OD C �0 y, a, 0 r4 O -i M OD d. N H I -A r1 r-4 H In a O1 Ln C M C`) O O O O Cl O O I- 00 r1 00 O O N O ri l0 r-i O r i M 00 O O l0 O Ln O O M m 00 O -1 z 0 M .-1 Ln M p H U v, H a H W z F{ z a H a H a co < z H F m a a< < H a H< z H �» W a > H H a a rC H a Q H co 0 w a a Q H H co a O Q x H a W a x r� H H W O H O H O H H O a E-F > O W H " O < H a 0 WW F+ U O WE-H O H U a O H z w 0 H E" W W O `NG E, H H O > a H a o 0 Ix w o S a p C4 w o > L] a cz a 0 p p z W o a p z H O H M a� w o a 0 M x z M z x O z 0 z w 0� = U) a a o C] w a a X o W 0 U a a Ln 0 N 0 x z H U Ui w z w > z >4 W a> < z a w (D > 07 z w H> U z H w x> cn z o w a> U z H W x> O W H O z Ga W H> W Ga z W a x> Z W U H x> z < W a a+ z x w O> H U) z U) p p h z w H a W > W p W > z D z O U W W > w a U M 0 U W 44 �v, Q o ri o > I z > z W x �0 rn O1 co �o OD H w N Ql rn Lr) N a N c M N I r-1 N Ln Ol 1.0 rn H C] F-4 p H z z m ri M N M Ln N OO Cl Ln O (Y) M N Ln Ln .--I Ln 1-1 M O r1 r- Cu Cu N H x z a < W W 00 a I O O G H LL' W p� O O O N N OD -IT d Ln a> v l0 O O O Ql d' w O O O O O O O O O O O O Cil 1 r1 r-4 r1 OD O O O O O Ln z �--� O r- (Y) C l0 Ln O l0 m H l0 I` O l0 m I- r+ I` 1-4 I` M m C' O) H M O [- LO U) OD �n O l0 H z M O r-1 Ln C M O I M Ln m r1 O r 4 U-) H O In M Ln C V' Un C' N O N N O N r-1 O In N O Ln N O In OD 00 l0 U C) .--I O .--I r-1 O r-4 H O r-i H O Ln r-4 O H r-1 O t.f) r-1 O r1 H O H r-1 O ri 1-4 O r-I r-I O In N O In N O to r-i O �r H o o z M O O 0 z w a a s a U s U U z U z H 0 Un O Ln > E-+ H H W z a M a cn W a W z H H V) Q I H o H a z U)EO H z U x E o £ o U) U) z x z x o: r> ►wl z U) z x fWA U H rah H z ,W, z oxc a < H wa' W a W w 0 CO H a p >4 OI FC U H p a W z < a cn A4 c9 p H O H a �+ a �+ U) W O > O C7 > O 0 0 U < a FC a a o 0 w cn z < H cn W z H Z w W W p rC U W p U a rC U H s FC U a a U 3 n U 3 0 U + a FC > H 44 z w U W a0 z 0 a 0 U H UU U > O O W O O N cn O O 0 z O M r1 m w O O r-i H a O O r-1 0 cn O .-i O 0 << O r 4 O 0 ri M O a F4 1-1 fM O s U O O M a � U O in O 3 o U O N O 3 0 U O O M 0 0 U 4 '77 Q m co cn U U U i z In Ln lD r m N lD r r-I N M %r to lD m O r m m , CV N" N N N H O H z N O \ N N \ N (M x U N O) O) 01 m N N N 01 01 O) 01 01 O� N Ol 01 O) N O W H N 1 H r 1 N N N r-I -1 r-I N -4 4 '-I N C7 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r!r pq H F H F H H F H H H F H H H H H F H H F OW a m N r Ln r1 ,-4 N v' M O O O M r O O m O M r u'1 M H m l0 In In r O O r-1 1-4 m N r m O Ln r-1 z [.] F z Ln Ol m N lD r M M O) O O N, in r lD m r N o -4 N Q' m H r (V N m lD V' N m c l0 r m '-I N �+ O M c .--1 M M LO lD m r m aCN N r-1 r 1 N V N r O O m w m lD O r O O M m !Z r r O4 O r 1p r W r c m O N r z a a w o h z z z \ m W H H l.a a w a a a a a a Q cz m m a FC FC m �C w w FC �C r>r rC H H rC m m z E+ H z H F H H H W w H z H H H U U U U O H O O w 0 < Q O O U) m O H O rz Z F 0 >>>> W H Z H H a4 H 3 3 H H o O H z H W W U H m m m m rU-I a U z m m m m cZ W w C� C� cz (Z ? >+ AG E 0.H+ O n Q Z H F+ H F O i-1 E O W W W W O O ZZO O H H O H H< Q O > 0 C) n H H in U) Q H H 0 H (Z Z Q 0 Z Z(-) H m H m z w a LL a a4 a a a z a W w z > w x z x z z W H z x W a H l4 z H w o z U m �4 Q< 14 w F F H H w z> w al w w> > H H> cD > U U> U m O U W> z z z z Q 0 m D a a s H << w o w w o 0 0 0 0 Cl) U m m m m H no U U U U W w C' M l0 N I I o H Q fz r V' r N M (Y) I Ql O (M o c V' m O w lD --1 o C M M lD u1 lD to Ln c) O) m > I > CO Lr) r r Ln O O .-i H r-1 l0 Ln Ln In tf) z z E x x x x r rr I I r-I 4 c cr c r r r r H Q H O Q Q Q Q m ur) 1-4 N N m Cl l0 l0 w M M M r H z N H 4 r--I r-I N N 1-4 O o r m m m m M rr) M M Q N O O 0 0 O O lD r 1 r-q H Q. r1 -4 ri .-1 1-4 .-1 H x a z a < as w m a I 0 O w F cz o 0 0 0 0 o r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c, IT IZT W O O O O O O v v O O O O O Cl O O O M M (M [Q u') O O O O o m m O O O O O O O O o Ln In In In 4 -A .-1 .-1 M M M M M M M r M U-) Ln In z Cl o O O O O O O Cl _q .4 Ln U') c C I�r o O O O w r rr r r to r r r l0 lD lD lD lD lD lD lD In Ln In H z m -t N N -1 N M q r M M M 1-1 H 1-4 -4 .--1 C' '-4 o m O O O O O Ln Ln in Ln Ln In O O o In Ln Lr) Ln Ln O l0 v N N N r 1 (Y) N N N N N V N v N M N u rl .--I .--I H r-i r-1 .-1 �-i e-i r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I e--1 �--I •--1 r-1 r-1 r-I '-i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O 1-4 r-1 r-1 .--1 —4 e 4 0 0 0 0 U 0 x x H a s w Q Q Z z Z z z U O 0 cL W W H H H H H M O z z M H " x x x x x o U) m m m m m m 44114 m m m m m o m m m m m W C4 Cu H H H H H H H U U U U Un w w w w a 00 U z z .4 a 11 a s z z z z LL z z z z W H a o m Lit m m m H H H H w w as w O m m rz U U m a a x x x x rx cz z F m m fL 0.1 aJ cL 0.1 m m m m I w w w w w I W C4 U Q Q a4 a4 CW W Q w r> H H W z z z z z z z EMEX WE-4 ru W W w w H rt r 7 < Q o 0 o O o W W W W � H 00 H r9 H� H O 3 3 w m U) m m m m m E-1 H H H U W W H H H H F H H H EH H H E-H ?H OI O O O O a z z Z Z a a a Z z rz z z rz rz < fZ H Ql D4 D. GL w 00 W W W w w w w w w w w w a< O a z fZ z s H z z m m m m m m m m m m m m a Q Q O O O O w FC w w w w w w w w w w w w m z > U U U U a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q H 1-4 W z O > O O O O O O O O m N N O O O O O Ln Ln In Ln Q o to In 0 Ln o o O 1-I u') in lD LD w lD lD w 110 l0 lD O }1 M 14 H .-1 -1 1-4 N N O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 U F 0 ZZZZ E-1 zz Cf) mQW mQW mQW mQW mQW n U H O O O O O O U U U U U U U QmW QmW QmW s 007 z O N r1 N N N m N O rn M N 4 M N M M M v M 4 M U) N lqp N 110 N N a H o z O 11 Ln N 1� c N O W (j x U H a N N N N N N N (N N m .-4 N Ol ' N N N N Ol r-1 N Ol -4 N 01 r 1 N 01 r 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N rt+ a a m Cq H H H H H H H H H E-+ E-4 H H H •• M H O c O m r O l0 r .--+ O) Lr) U) O O m M O r 1 N l0 O v O N N V O O z w x H z N Q LO m r U1 O r r N N O O m Ol l0 fM C l0 N >4 O C' W r-I m a Ln r r O tD r I U) O O m (Y) N O O N C M N Ln Lf O -4 r r M N N O H O a' H m m w m C �D a w w .4 .a a a U) z U o >> U F 0 F 0 H 0 F 0 W F a o z H F o H 0 a a a a F o H 0 F 0 U) E 4 H O U) Q W H U) U) H H H H H FC H H a C0 a U) H H H a H x a H O a H H U H U a O U) w a 0 cn a O a O z a w 0 W a O a (7 O a 0 cn w a 0 cn a w 0 a` 44 a 0 > z a w a a> w z z> w H w 0> H w a> H x> w a w w> [_+ [X4 Gu c=a w > a a> W a W a> ryr w a> a w U) Q 0 U 0 U Q U) Q a) x a a w w > > 0 o U o U Q cn Q U) w a Q cj w r. U W H Q a o I .-I m r LO O > 1 z > z W co x r r m O) N l0 (M Ln M la N V C 1 %T O m Lr) Cl Q) LO O ri C r♦ M I W O H Q H Q 1-4 =) r z (") r-1 r m r-4 m U') u7 l0 Ol M r H M O Q) L r4 I m m m m I N H M N C) O Co H aG Q z a < W w m a 0 0 w H a W W �r M U) o O O o O O H N m M N m o O O rn v w o O O 0 m m o m m N O m c m cP a O z Lr) O 1.n M O k r c U) O (n O r LO 1-1 H U) c M O M O M O M O O) ri 01 r 4 H z a 0 r I 1n (N .-4 u-) N Ln C H Ln (N N Ln M M un c (D U) u) U-) Ln 1n Ln o U) 0 Ul U U r� .-1 O ri r-4 O ri .--I O r-1 H O ri r1 O H H O H r-1 O u7 H O r-1 H O r-4 r-4 O r-1 r-4 O r-4 r-1 O r-1 r♦ O In ri O In 0 p U z H U) a H O a a w w x H o w01 M a z O H H >4 a OU o z z ri a U) w w U) o z a Q H H H H a U) U) U) M a w 1 H U) a M s O a W a F z H W E a Q H W a a x w U M-1 W U F-1 z H U) Ccr (4 1-1 a U z w a z M H w H w Hu x H >� a: a H o 01 Q co w a 0 x U 0 x U w o H H o < a >4 a H a H s a w a w a w cf) w H H a w a a < a r,+ a 0 Q W Cl) W w U) W H w F-( a U) H m Q O v) a a a x w Q W m a H M s x U) N a z a U U) U) H C*+ z W Q Q Q Q Q W w Gu 4. ry 44 U z 0 M O Y1 U H > LO lD O U) u-) w O U) o In O w Ln r O U) o rH O a O O r-4 x o O N a o r-4 O Q r ,-1 O a r r-1 O s o uj O cf) o C' O a LO 0 O a o r-4 O U) U H W W . M H 0 x W Fi F-1 H FC FC FC 008 z r N OD N Cil N O M N m (n M M Ln M lD M co M 01 (n O v' (z F O z N O N \ LO N O W x U F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m .--I (N N N N N N 01 rt ON r-1 0) (D x 4 < CO N F N F N F N F N F N F N F N F N F N F N F N E+ N F N F a a 0D M E-+ O O O O O CD N N C l N O O O l0 O O O LI O O M M z w E+ z (N a lD a> r1 0) r r T O O M N N r Ln r O o l0 a ri N .--1 l0 M N -4 lD N .-4 a O O O O 00 M N M M N O O O M O an r N l0 al 10 O O N r O In r N ri ri l0 O -1 U W l0 N z w CO U) a a s a a a .4 a H � a a 4 a F cn a s z (n O mF Q 0 Q F a Q F a 0 F O F 0 F Q F Q (n F 0 E-F O (n x x F W Q W O H x F U x F U w F a 11 F < (n (D Cn (D F F F Ix O F z F 0 tz O F H O a a H =) z w 0 0 0. fz O a W w 0 < CA < CA 0� O a F O 0.'. O F U z O H M F O F U a O a woo 04 (n W > z rz a C) a ❑ z W ❑ a z rz ❑ z x x ❑ z a ❑ Q z z ❑ z D a ❑ z < ❑ 0 z ❑ rz ❑ z a O ❑ x z a H (n a W w .4 w w > W W w > W w a > M (n < W > x W a > < x w > F (n w > " W rx > F (n W > U < x w F > a a (n ❑ a❑ w Gu 3 (n H F a' F a F (n C w a z H a H z H > x a Pq a Cl) W w U W 1-1 ❑ 00 (Yi W c LP1 c 00 c 0 r O > 1 z > z W 1 OQ V' x O 1 Vv O 0 r-1 01 00 V Lr) r-1 I U r1 I O OD Ol r C' O Q' m -1 N C' 0 H ❑ H H O O z O O O N N O d' C' M v' M T OD l0 r '-+ (`') 00 M 00 N N O ❑ H x, 01 m O 01 Cil r Ol Ln M Cl) OD z a < a w ao a I 0 O 44 F p',, tp l0 01 ON O O c' O N O N O O r w Eq c l0 �0 c l0 vV l0 O O O O M O O O> Ln O O m Ill O O o O a OD � Ol 01 Q1 Ol 01 01 M rl dl Q1 CTl .--1 r1 M z F rl .--1 .--1 H O O O N O O O N N O z D 0 O Ln r 1 0 U') r1 O LO H O Ln Q I.n Q Q Ln Q (`') Ln C ri Ln N N O N C Ln C M Ln N r Un M r Lr) M c Ln cT U u a o 0 0 0 0 0 rt 0 --1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln Lr) Ln 1-4 a H U z Cl O U z 1-1 W w z O z 0 M o L 3 w z z F- 4 O U H w z a a a �❑ 00 H w H w H (n a a z z I w F U z H U z H z a W U (D z U z z O U a U x U x H x ❑❑ a x E-4 0 a z on H < a ❑❑ tz cz F co W (n - w H H x w F cn - H x U W F a << O x 0 x a w ❑ ?1 Ol < a FC a O U (n 2 U (n 3 (n 0 a O CD 3 0 3 H z < �+ a z - w z x C7 ❑ H > x U x 0 w a (n ❑ z 0 1-1 0 r1 0 r♦ 0 —1 r 0 r o o r4 0 0 0 o 0 r1 0 0 Cl rt 0 rt 0 M Q }1 U E-H U 1-1 O (n O (n O (n O O O O 0 r+ z N U o (D rl E H O < O O < O O x O Q U C� C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C.� x x x x x x x C� J 009 2 r OD .-4 N M �r m Ln lO r OD O r-i m N O F Z M M V' in N \ � N O W x U F N N N N 01 '--1 m r-I r-4 1-1 N N m 4 (71 .--1 Ol ri M r-1 N N N N O1 ri Q W H (N F N F N F N F N F N H N F N H N E4 N F N F N F (N F a a co .. M H z w E H Z =) N Ln ri Q' l0 N ri l0 O O O 17 OD 0 O lD Ln O O N O O OD T) N O U) (N N 00 c l0 01 C LO O OD N 110 O O r >4 At O V' w Ln N rf m %�O Ln m l0 -4 N H M M l0 -4 (n O 0 N U-) O O O O OJ On O co w >4 c ❑ l0 O if 1 N N C11 l0 T) N .-+ F H H h-I 0) CD ❑ �.o rn Lr) N l0 U U a ❑ H ❑ z H U H U) O a rt+ a 3 a a a a s 3 a Q U) U) r� rt Q Q H ❑ FC OE- W a Z 0 F O F H F O rS a H 0 E H \ O UUP >> O a F w 0 F O F a H H Ix O F O H O a 0 x W H E-F z z E-+ H a F+ Cf) U) H z H GZ H H O O H w H H H z U H O a H a O F F a O a O x Z (nO F U H U a O C7 cZ z O U Za O �� cZ O cZ O w cZ O Z 00 U z > z a U ❑ z H =) H O ❑ z a w ❑ z Cr ❑ W z FCC a (x z H ❑ F z ❑ z ❑ z U) U) ❑ z U) ❑ z H a ❑ z U ❑ z H a H U) w w > CZ U OG U> w H z> w w w E> H z H z> w x w U> H U) w > w a w w a> x U> w aw a> w co (4 a> a H U) ❑ w rz w fz w U w E O U O U H a z H H 1-4 H Cu O a ❑ U) a U x vl w 44 U W " ❑ (Z N O N O -4 O O > I z > z w an E N I -1 I Ln m co rn 07 ('M OD m M OD O N O N O N C O N ul r m H ❑ H ❑ H ,"D z l0 ri rM lD H M r C' r w C' N r H CA r H W co w r:+ z < h❑ U w H OD I O N N Q1 OD d H .Y. < z a < w m x I O o w H cZ w W o O O 0 O O o O O O O O y M U') r a Ln O O O N Ol Ln o N Ln 0 00 N 0 O O 0 O O o O O r+ O 110 E � 2 (n O l0 M O l0 .--i l0 N Ol C w Lr) 00 Ln t!') l0 r-I N l0 dl O Ql 00 Cil M O r-i O r r M l0 Ol O l0 F z O N O r I N O 1-4 O O O N O I �r ul fM c Ln M O 1- r N O N w Ln M -10 Ln M r-4 in ri O N Ln N N O lf) U U r,r •--1 o r-1 r-1 0 ri ri 0 r-1 H 0 r-I r-1 0 1-4 r-1 o r-4 o r 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 (V Cl Ln F z z O H w a w s a w H U O U O n O H U H w H w O x M cn U) Q U z H >+ H cZ W cZ W O U W 0: 0 a w w w H U z O H M F M z E a a I a a s cZ Z w z Ci U U m 0 >> 0 z H x CA U z w EmsA a z a s U U) 0 E-H r~ H r H m !Z r>r a a� H H a O U � H `A F M H < O >4 a .. m w U) w E-H U a z a U 4< a u s x w ❑ x z H a z H 0 x (n z H z z w 44 O cn Q a. a x o ❑ x 0 ❑ x (D 0 Q a E w H z co Q U) K U 0 a z a s x U o H a a a H H U) H r-4 z w x x F-4 H h h cq ❑ a s a E E z O p > 0 O 0 o o O rM r-4 o 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 11 0 _q Cl M 0 O >, O F U H r 1 ri r 1 0 H z ri r 1 Ix r-1 ❑ -4 a < .-A s O U O o c o O 0 , 7 < U 1 010 z O r N M c' In l0 r OD m O 1-1 N M -r Un I'D r m m O r-I N r-I N M Ln qr vT -w ,r qT c c In In LnLn Ln In Ln Ln un Lo to �o t�o In Ln In O F z N O N � r N x U Q) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m m m O W &4 r-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -1 H r-4 C7 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E fn F F F F4 F F F F F F F F F F F F F E-I F F F F F F F F a a m • m M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O M M F O 110 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M r z F w z O M O O O I.f) I.f) 0 0 0 0 0 OD Lr; O N In aD O M N O O r N Ln In Cr u) OD In c' m c 00 m m co N l0 In r-I r �r >a O lD O r-I r-4 V' N N M N N M Ln C' 1-1 r--I r-1 r-i 1-4 m N N Ln .--1 aN OD M O O O I'D O O O M O C� O a N CD a 14 a s 1-a a a a a a 1-a a a a .4 I4 a a a a m r� H I'D O << Q a a a Q<<< Q Q< a< a a a Q Q r-+ C� N U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U m H H H H H H H H V- 4 H H H H H H H H H H 1-i -4 3 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z U U U U U U U U U u U U U U U U U U U U cn a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W X F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F H F F c� a w a a s fZ FC Q U) <F F F E F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F z Q F a F z F z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z F O x 0 W O 0 O x x x z x x x x x E x x x x x x x x x x O W H U F > F H F C� C7 C7 C� C� C� C� C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C� C7 C7 C7 C7 F O F rtr cn E E E E E E E E i E E E H a U) U) U) O H z O F O F O F E-F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F O G] W W > 1:4 F- 0 0 U O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 H F-I 1--I h h h h w a a a ai a w x w h w h h h h h� h 1w) � h 11D h h h �wD 1WD w H> H> O > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O> a a a 0 x w x a a a a a D: rz rz rz rz o: a fz a a a a rz a rz o a U U) E a a a, a a a a, a a a a a a a a as a as a a4 a s U) U) U) W w " 0 LY. r1 r--1 r-4 r-1 r-I -I r-4 r♦ r-1 r-4 r•1 r-r e-1 r-1 r-4 r-1 r-1 r I r-1 ri OD lD m O -1 r-1 r 4 r I r 4 r-I r I r-I r-1 -4 r I r4 r1 -1 -1 4 r- A r m tD 1 > CQ I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 C M %D z z 'x r-i V' r1 r1 H r-I H r-I r-I r-i r-I r-I r-1 r-4 r-4 r4 r-I r-I r-I r-1 -4 r-I 'A N Dl H O H O m Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H z Oo m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 In u) In C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r1 r i 1-4 H x < z a r.: fn w cn a 1 O 0 w E-I O M O O O O O O O O N O N O O O O O O N O O O O O W O O In O O O O O O O O M O M O O O O O O M O O O O O (Y� I'D O In O O O O O O O O to O Ln O O O O O O 1n O O 0 0 0 0 a) M a) M Ln u) Ul U) M Ln In in In Ln V' Ln M I.n Ln Ln Lr) to M z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �o �o I'D w w w %10 w k-D w iD w w ko m �10 �o w t10 � I'D 110 �.o r r r E-I z N N OD r-I N N Lo ,zr r a) O 1n w m OD N r N Ln N r N N I r-I r-4 a O O OD In r-I O O m co O r-1 r-I 1-4 cM O O O -4 O 0) r-1 01 In If) Un Ln O Ln r I I'D c r r r w l0 r r r rr r lD r r w r �D c N r-I V U U N r-i r-1 r--I r1 r-1 r-I r-I r-1 r I r-1 r-1 ri r 4 r-I r-I r-1 r-I r-I rH r-a ri r-4 11 r-4 H Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln r-I c -1 cr �r c c sr IT c �r �r �r �r cr cr c c v c .7 r--1 r1 r-+ H U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z H H 1--I H . H . H H H H H . H H . H . H H M O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O >+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U') W U) v) v) to U) cn v) cn v) v) v) cn c!) z z z a a cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn v) cn cn W v) cn cn cn H H H a a< a a Q a a a Q a a a Q a Q a a a o H F F EI I z x a a 0 O O O F< H U a a a W F a O z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z w w W a z F a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n 0 O (� H w W m U w w m U) m m m m m m m m fn m fn U) U) m O w fz a z z rz z a a z a fz fz z z rz rz z w rz a w w w >4 01 U) a z w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U U U Q ai < fZ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x" H H a rr O x < z U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w w w a 0 H x O H .. H H . . . H . H H . H H . . H . H Cv w w U) z U Ix z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 F fs+ W z O .7 O O O r-i r-I r-1 r-I r-I r-I ri r-I r 4 r I r I r 4 -4 r--i r-+ r-1 r-I r-1 r-I r-I In Ln In U 1-4 O Iq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O >+ O -4 O r-4 r-I r1 r-I r--i r-+ r--/ r-I r1 r-i r-I r-I r4 r-1 r 1 ri r- ri r4 r-I O O O UP rz U) 3 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w w w U H H O < H " h-I H H H . H H H H H H H . . . . . H r., U £ E z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z O O O Q 4 Oil z -r Ln to r m 0� O H N m e U-) 110 r c Lr) �D r m m O -1 N M I�T u7 lD FC Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln � � � �o tD � � � t.o � t.o ko � � r r r r r r r a O F z N O N 00 N O W E Q x U F W Q• H E I �� r-I N &4 N r-1 N r-1 N H ri N E 4 r-1 N E-1 r-1 N H .-i N H r1 N H r-1 N H H N E-I r-1 N E-1 H N E-1 N N N H N N N F N N N H N N N F N N N H N N N H N N N H N N N H N N N H N N N H N N N H N N N N N N H H a a 00 c •• M H N H OO N N 00 C N l0 N V' v' r-1 O O in O M O M l0 M r -4 O u) lD H N M r M O M O M r l0 r M M M H l0 O M 01 M �D C' c' 01 `:r M . Z w y1 H z m O M U-) r M to N 01 M N Ln l0 r H M O N V I C 1 O N t0 M Q .--4 H r 1 r-1 I 1D CD 11 C ri C r-1 I N l0 O Ln V M r 1 l0 r1 V -4 r N -4 to CO 1.0 0 a a Q z E- o O W H H H O a H W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O > a' H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H " 0 z U a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a .a a a a a a z H U) a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a W w a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a > w w U w in LO rn M m m m v' r--I m N N H m m m V' r w m m M N O O O o H 0 p4 m m m m M M M m r 1 H m m r M O N v w v O O r O O O LO 1n O W .--I r1 N N r-1 -i N M L) l0 m m .--1 m r N H l0 m r r m N 1,0 1,0 M m > I > (i1 O O r-1 ri r r m m r-1 V' m m O m N 110 .--1 m m N N d' r r r m m z z tT CT V' cT C' C' O r m m m m r-1 r-1 Ln r-1 N N l0 to 1n l0 -v m m N N H Q H O O O O O O o 1 O O O O O -4 H O r-1 r-1 .-1 r-I O O r-i H O O r-1 r-1 H z Ui Ln Lr) to to al Ln a) Ln In to ul In in Ln ui ui N in in 1n Ln in u) T) u7 j� (] r1 1-4 ri e1 r1 r-I r-1 r-I r1 H 1-1 1-4 11 H r-a r1 1-1 r-1 H H r1 r1 r-I 1-1 r-1 r-1 r1 H `NG � z a Q w w co o; I o o Lu H cz .1 0 0 0 o r-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r1 0 LLj r-1 O O O O r--I O O O O o r-I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1--1 O Q� N O O O O m O O O O O m O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O m O rJ M r1 M M z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F1 z M r1 N to H M r1 r1 H r1 H M H ri r1 H r1 H r1 C' N r1 r--1 C' N N r-1 O Ln Ln 10 Lo Ln Ln 1n N to u7 O 1n O O O O u) Ln Ln O O Ln Ln O O O Ln O r-i C Q V H H r-I H r-1 N r-1 N N H N r I H v r1 r-i C r-1 r-I r-I to v U U ri r1 r-1 r-1 H r-i r-4 r-1 H H H r1 r1 r1 H r1 r1 r-1 H r1 H r1 H r-1 H Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ri r1 r--1 r1 r--1 H r1 r-1 r1 H r1 r-I H r-1 H r-1 H r1 r-1 H r l r1 H r-1 r-f u7 -A M O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U In z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H " H O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q a a a a a, a a a a, as a s a4 a a a a a a a4 a a a a a as a W F W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a CA H �• a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U a rt O L�. LL CL LL+ w 44 LW U4 LLa Lu LL, Lv 44 CZ4 Lu U4 54 Lu 44 w 44 Lu LL! LL, 44 Lu L14 a o 44 L" LLr Lu Lu Lu 44 44 44 LL+ IU EU 44 1" Lu Lu E" 44 44 44 LL+ LL Lu 44 Lu Lu U z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E-1 Lu G] z O > Ln o Ln In Lo Ln Ln 1n Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln un Ln In ur) u) Ln uo Ln u') u) u) In Ln Ln a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O }1 O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 U H Gu Gu 44 w LL+ Gu 44 LL, Lu Lu 44 Gu Lu Lu LL. Lu Lu Gu LL 44 LL1 Lu Gu LLa L14 [L, L" U H C" Lra LL FJ4 Lu LL. Lu 44 Cr E a Lu Lu EU 44 L , Lu L" LL. LL Cu Lu L a Lu 1L4 44 Lr LL. a U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn �o r rr M In Ln O M O H r-4 O r1 E-H U) W a H a W W C7 z F--1 a a U) a Q a 0 H 0 a a N N N F 0 N 0 kD N W z H a 0 0 O to M M Ln r-A r-I O H z H x a W a �i a z 0 a O r1 0 W a Z r> a H o Z O r 11 r N r O m 1-1 m M r a\ c r Ln r to r N OD r r OD r m r N O I- LO N N O w (� E Q Ow a 00 U F+ a OC1 Ql -4 N H m r-1 N H Oil r4 N H N N N H N N N H 01 .--i N H O� N H Cn N F 01 N H Q1 N H N N N F 01 r-a N F Cn -4 N F Cn � (N H M H z W x F Z m M Ln O O) O cT l0 0) tD O Ln (M O O Ln OD 01 N Cl O w -4 OD r'1 N OD M O O O O O m m N M Ln r M LO N >1 a O r rl c' M r-1 Ol N r r1 r-1 Lr) Lr) ri O in Ln N 00 Ln . 1 in Cl) O Ln (M m N O O Z Ln U I- co 01 N O O l0 -4 4 a U U) M lD !z l0 U o U) O O O �D O O m M m N M .-r � 0 U W a cn W ❑ U) z Z O a H o a H 0 CD a o f (D 0 z a M F a 0 a E-H 0 a F o w H L14 w Q a F H Lu 0 O F a a H 0 0 a F 0 a F 0 U >> U W O H O > H F a H a H x o ❑ w a O U) ❑ H w x x o a ❑ o H N rz (D o z ❑ H a s O �-q ❑ H U) a w 0 H ❑ rz H O H Z U o o ❑ 0 Cl) w a 0 H U) a w 0 Cr ❑ H H > m 0 o z ❑ a O F U ❑ H a O ❑ E-+ co z W O H ❑ U) a w H U) s w F z H U Cl) w ❑ z w > a W > z a W M w z F W H > Hz F W U) > w w z > W cz > a z a, w a > rz z H W cn > z < 3 U W < Z 3 w U > W H z d4 W a > a F (n z z W > a z a W a > D M a 2: O a 04 x O co w w W a a H U) co N H cz (z a r-4 H U) U U H ❑ O > I z H ❑ H > z H (z w IQ x D Z N (M O O N M M O O N N M O O N lD In r kD C' v' w r ri N M N O OD v' Ln N dT Ln O O N U W Ln N un Ln OD OD r-4 r-4 I N OD Ln .-1 -4 I N ❑ H x a z a � w O O O Ln M .-+ N N ❑ lD O O w w a O o Lu H . !x w E r Ln r Ln r un O O O O O O O O N m Ln N 1-4 OD N r--4 OD O O O N m in O O O O l0 O lD � z F M lD �D M �D �D M lD l0 Ol O lD Ln O l0 r1 lD �D 01 O l0 M O r M O r O lD O l0 O r Cl lD O l0 Z D 0 U r+ Ln N H in N Lr) N N r m \D (Y) U) N M N . r Ln N N O N Ln m M N N O N N O Ln N O Ln FT, O �--1 O r-i O r•-i O C' O V' O r-1 O r-i O r-i O r-i O r-1 O r-4 O 14 O In O In H w [y a o 0 a [- 0 z H z H O 0 Ln U Q<< a U a U a u > a w H cn O U �I H Ej >> + W, H I z 0 x� a 0 z 0 ati a C7 a 0 a 0 cn a a W O a Iz1 O co < a U << v + � ❑ Q a < Z E-4 W 2 ms E-+ W Z Q W H a z Gq H Q :) rZi H z H cz r2-I H z H tz H E- z H a z O U) U) A4 U) cn a cn w F E-H O >+ m W a � co W W > 4 F z a4 LT1 O Lu �a F U) W 3 H U) W 3 < 01 a< a U) o ❑ z a w x E-+ a w x H a w x H LW O z❑ a a a w a < fz a < x U 3 U w cz 3 U w a U > z a U x a < x U) H o� 0 U) E+ 0 U) H Lu z 0 m O >r U U W > o (14 O H a a O N O h-I s a o N O H fz a Ln O 0 O a a o O W a a O Ln O a Q w Ln r) ClDO U) < rz Ln 11 O U W cx Ln r1 O U w a o N > H a r 1-1 CO O a r-i U) O O D 0 co O (� O 0 D t l/ 0 M 013 z Q c co rl) 00 O pp ul 00 lD 00 r w 00 O m 00 O M ri O) (N O) M 0) yr 0) LO 0) lD 0) r-1 00 N 00 r 0) 00 Q\ a F o z N O LO N O N O W x U F N N N N a) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (N N N N (3) r-+ a) 1-4 N N N N N U x Q Q LIB N F N F N H N F N H N F N F N H N H N F N H N FF N F N H N H N H N F N F F a a 00 F, o Ln Cl O c Q) In r r N %.D r rn W rn o0 M o O rn r o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O z W H z N O M r1 C' O v` r O r O O V' OD O M O x >+ p O N r to m aT C' C' O N H C' N 00 C' 1-4 M -1 N M 00 Lr) Lr) N O O\ N r r c") r 00 LO (N Q,• a r-1 o O Ln r-I 00 0 Lr) Q' r' V' 0 0 Ln r lD co M o Lr Lr) m -4 m O -W r M V r1 r N lD M o O to N O O 00 O to (N o N O) r1 W 1Ui .a > Q .a m < a .a Q F .7 z < Q ra H < rn CD r 0) o r a) I r .a Q U uo .] < W o H W o CO H 01 o r F a 0 W F o `.G H H H Q 0 a F U H " 0 44 H m 0) 0) F 0 F 1-4 0 .a 0 .a H 0 0 F U H 44 H O w H a s w 0 0' a U O a s w o w a x 0 Ow z 0 OW. O > M > M > M a O H z O F z O F z a O O [4 0 > z a U E-1 0 a z z o H z 42 U z um z cn cn cn cn w "m a z a p w z >H w >+ w >- w p z U U U o z a W H to a W H W H r.3 z W z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z u z" 0 W a> U W U> > a > a > a> W H mm H F W w> U U cn Q O> U W> F W> > a> a H m H cn H cn H cn H cn H cn F m 0 cn cn co cn W a W a W a 0 W �' V M N H 0 O a W N p lD C V M lD lD M O M O (M O > I z > z ca x O (N r r 1 v O r V m r-1 N m N N N N N M N N N N r N r-1 O 1 O 1 O 1 H p H 1-1 M z i N r-1 r1 N a' N r-i N cT L Q' Ln V' Lr) C' Ln C` Lr) C' U-) V Lo ill Ln I) Ln Ln lD lD lD lD kD lD p H x O O O) m 0) 0) 0) m al (Y) M M O O O < z a r.0 w w as a 1 0 0 w H a W W r1 O lD Cl O O O) v lD N fM LO M M O M M 00 M M 00 M M 00 M M O M M N Ol c 00 O) 00 LP1 O O O O O O O O O r (M lD r cM 1p C' rM lD 01 00 In E p z O) O lD 0) O lD a> lD Ljr) O lD M O r M O r M O r M O r M O r M O r M O r O) O lD 0) O lD Ol O lD Ol O lD Q) O lD O) O \D O> O lD 0) O �D H z N O) r-1 r M M M M M M M M Ol Q) N N r -4 � O O O Ln M I'D O L 00 Ln c Ln W Ln c Ln Ln Ln u) Ln N (Y) lD M 110 -1 r O N 1n M L N N U U Q N O Lr) O C' O LO O C' r 1 O r1 r I O H r1 O r--1 r1 O r-1 r 1 O r-1 r 1 O r1 O r1 r i O r1 r 1 O V' r 1 O d' .-1 O C' r 1 O r-1 e A O e--1 .--4 O r1 1-1 Cl r1 U z H cn U)� 0 0 z H .4 U U z U z U z U z U z U z U z U z 0 W W W M O o cn x a H z x U x H (n w H cn w H cn w H cn w H cn w H w H cn w H cn w > a z M > a co > a o U) 0 Lr) a O 3 W F U w H Q p W F a z H Cf) p z a < co < Q<< w m w Q<<< m m W W > W W F W E+ W F .a o .a 0 .a 0 0 co H < a �+ O W 3 x < .a x U) - p z - z - z - z - z - z - z - a H < F cn < E1 M < H U) z z z U H a rC a r� a 0 F .�- H :D z < x co a cn a co a M a cn a cn a M a z r.0 H H H .a a a o .a o 0 w .a cn 0 z 0 to O cn H cn F 0 H 0 F 0 H 0 H 0 E+ 0 H 0 F a a H a H a H a H a H a H a 4+ z 0 > r O Lr) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O }i U E1 U" O O a O O r1 z O v' O < H —4 O o x r1 O a o r1 Co a 0 ri O a 0 r-1 O a 0 r-i O a 0 r1 O a 0 r-i O a o O r1 a O r1 a O a O 11 a r-1 O a 1-4 O a r-1 O a Lr) O W !1 Q U U)cn cn H H H H F F H H F F H H H F F > 1; l 014 z M O1, O Q' Ln -4 OD Q1 O m OD O O -4 r' E+ z N O Ln N .-I N U N N m 01 N O N N r+ N (� Q N N N N N N Q W E• E+ E� E• E4 E-4 a a 00 .. ao 0 0 �o Ln o M E� M O O N Ln O z H w z �0 Ln Ln M rn Ln 2: a N O O Ln M >4 0 u) :T W N r a O OD O O e-H O O M O O co O O l0 L� Ln N z Ln Ln N O w z M N Ln < r � U a W E• z Q 0 Q z a 0 0 0 0 H 0 > 0 0 w H Ei E- F4 E-4 H a a cn rz a x E• x cn cn x 0 a O H O w 0 O O w 0 w w 0 U O > OG Q H Q a Q z Q H H Q Q z H U z U) W .4 z a W cn z z W a w z w a as a a z w H z z w p a z O O (I i U) H H U) U) ". w C.a U w o O O W o Ln I 9 pq o OD r r o z z x Ln Ln L0 -+ 1 r H Q H =) 14 l0 l0 Ol m m H z Oo oD c r r Ln Q Ol N OD FC z a < 14 W 0o a 1 O O w E4 z O O O N N O w O O O O O O co O O O co co O E O m M 01 M M OD z O O O O O m r r r r Ln H z N M N M M N a O Ln O Ln Ln Cl O N N Ln -1 Lf ) U N r-4 4 N O O O O O O r-I 1-4 Ln r-1 r-I Ln z O H E- U < z E-H H a M O 0 U) 0 0 Ln '.� H H rz� Q w fx rpE�: �C U Ei I U] O O H Q E+ a a W. U) a z a x 0 m H U O O U U W - Q a EH a O O >+ a rC O z U) a a a (n a U) z >O 3 3 X X X E4 w W z O > O m O N N O Q . 4 O O .--i 4 Ln OU z z H z z z z I a w ao I O E-4 oJ.� 015 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 48443 02/21/02 PET005 CASH/PETTY CASH 48444 02/21/02 REG051 REGIONAL ACCESS PROGRAM CHECK TOTAL 2:50PM 02/21/02 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 151.87 425.00 576.87 05 016 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NO. NAME ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 48431 02/21/02 &01648 TIM VIGALLON 48432 02/21/02 ALB006 ALBERTSONS STORE #6567 48433 02/21/02 BES101 BEST BUY 48434 02/21/02 CAL111 CAL STATE SAN BERNARDINO 48435 02/21/02 COA026 COACHELLA VALLEY ICBO 48436 02/21/02 COA080 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 48437 02/21/02 DEL050 DELL COMPUTER CORP 48438 02/21/02 GRA010 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO 48439 02/21/02 PET005 CASH/PETTY CASH 48440 02/21/02 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 48441 02/21/02 SOU002 SOUL OF CHINA 48442 02/21/02 VER200 VERIZON CHECK TOTAL 2:21PM 02/21/02 PAGE 1 PAYMENT AMOUNT 67.00 119.58 1750.00 2500.00 100.00 9365.74 1750.00 518170.52 100.00 576.87 303.26 524.06 535,327.03 Vr, � 5" 017 N v O H H N O \ W t o Q � a -4 H H N z z w w N >4 >4 O H W H W H z to z Cf) W w w a w H H O H O a w W cn Gu H r-+ E-4 W Eu H 4, H 0 O a O a H H ca U vxi FC U Q O U a a z a s a s N O ,4 N k+ N W o a Q 0 F-1 H a x O z a Q w 0a x a z 0 O w H H I O m H H 'Z., a � H O cn U H U 0 Q r r 0 to o Co a >+ H c •a o u� �n o 0 c� a4 z (Y) O (Y) m O O O 00 0o c v O O (N N r r 00 00 r-4 4 -4 1-1 I U') LO a H H o 0 o H E-F H '-4 a 00 0 0 r>r 0 z z z O m F-1 a I Q W E-H a z Cl 0 0 0 m H 04 0 0 O O Q 0 w o 0 0 0 >a O OC1 a z -1 a r>; O o 0 0 0 a z U) H H o 0 0 0 z 0 z o 0 0 0 a0 00 0 CD O U H U r-1 -4 .-+ 1-4 U H U o 0 0 0 < U < •-+ -4 v cT a W x H 0 H o 0 o w • H 0 a a a E-H O z W a a H H cn a H F:4 U H U O a H 0 0 w w x x U U E-H H z z 0 0 �ll z L() m V c LO I'D c (1) (M M 9 O F z N O \ H N N U C7 C7 (7 C7 U U' (D 0 (D (D (D 0 (D U' C7 C7 U' C7 O W F E i x XXXXXXXX x E E C� Q Q m W F W F W F W E-F W F W F W F W F W F W E 4 W F W F W F W F W F W E 4 W F W F a a Ln F Cl O O to O O O O O O M Ln O O O r N r-q lD M Ln -4 kD m c 0o C. O m (M 01 r-i W 01 O O z W F z r Q\ O O O• C0 (M M N Ln OD O M O N •-� lD O >+ O lD ri Ln r O U') O 1-4 (n r-I O r N m N Ln N IV c LO Ln r m r m OD OD IT O Q M Q1 C' a N ri r r-( ('M O O OD O O O O O O c r O O N Lr) L4 2: r �o Ql ra Q xU-) O w O 0 O 0 Ln 110 Q O x Ln O r H z >+ r+ U r U H In N r4 M 01 U r Ix r1 —4 OD H V az Q x w a 0 z x a LO F > O a5 w w F Q z rx w 0 x U ra �7 F D F r7 Q F4 H E �l 6-4 F O r4 .a (n z H a Q F Q F a E Q F Q Q F w Q (n F Q F a Q E F z z z Q F W 0 H C7 0 F 0 F 0 U 0 a E+ Q o F 0 F 0 F 0 0 U E-+ 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 [-+ H H a 0 a' (n Z W C4 U QZ z w >>>>>>>> (Z w Ix U U U w Q O > H Z 00 O W HQ O W >+ 0 a 0 "n O U O F 0 (n cn m (n (n m (n m O 0 W O N 0 D a D a D a 0 0 \ w z U z z a z O z U z U z 0x x a a a Lz rz a z O z F F F z 0 "M W D Lv w > a a W > .a a w z > D w > D W a > w F w F w F w F w F w F w F w F w > a W a > (n z (n z m z w > z Q G1 W D 2: O F Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q x 0 0 0 x (n a M w U (n 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 W U U U U W U W 0 0 rI z H H H a Pz 0 0 (n (n (n (n (n (n r F Lu Lu 0 > 1 > W W Ln �10 M 110 M ko D 0 D 0 D 0 D 0 D 0 D 0 O 0 W a W .I W r1 z H 0 z H f+ D OD m Ol lD O r O r hl a I--1 a H a H a F-I a H a r-( %D I OD Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 FA z N r 1 M N O lD O lD Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > Q > r r 1-1 Lr) N N N N H Q J4 z a Q w m a 1 O 0 Lu F R: O O U) O O 0 0 N Ln O N M Ln Ln M M M O W (Y1 O O O O M . O O O O O O O 0 M to w w O 0 M lD w w w w M r I Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O D z r ri M O r N r (`) r M r-( M ri M r-1 M H (M r♦ (Y) -4 (M r4 (n -4 M r1 N Ol O m O CT O O1 V' F V' r r� lD lD lD l0 lD lD l0 lD l0 lD ri lD lD to N z D O O N O O O ri O T Ln (N O N O 'czV L() 'Q Lo rr) Ln vT Ln IT Ln a' Ln O O M r lD r Ln r O O O U O N O ri m N N V C' "" W'c V O lD w w O U Q i 0 ' i Cl . i O ri 0 ri O ri Cl r 0 ri 0 r I 0 r1 0 ri 0 r 1 0 r( 0 r 1 0 r 1 0 r♦ 0 ri 0 ri 0 O z 0 0 0 �0 0 0 w w w w w w w w U U U Ln a W F F F F F F F F z O z O z O (`') z H 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a H H H 0 a w F F F 0 LC) w % W m >+ w >4 w >+ w >+ w >4 w >i w >+ w >+ w >+ w O U U D U D U D x a Q 0 F z a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ,4 a a a w x F x F x F (n Q z (n Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w (n (n (n U 1 0 (n > > > > > > > > > H o 0 0 >4 W a F z r7 Q z 0 >4 W F Q a Q �-1 Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a a x U U U F F ao Q H D 0 H (n F ao Q F-F a W a W a W a W a W a W .a W a W s W o U W F w F w F w a >+ Q a O1 a o > H z W F (n x U x U �" U x U x u x U x U x U x U a H z H z 1--1 z \ x a w Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 9 9 9 a (n z F Q al U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 U F z Ga 0 w > OD lD r i r-( to O O O O O O O O O O O Cl Ln D 0 >+ C O O ri N m O w O m O m Cl O O w O w O O0 O Ln O r-1 O r-1 O -1 O O O O U F H ,-+ 0 w a (n W a Q Q o Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 Q 0 a w F W �� Q U La Q m U U U U U U U U u U 0 U 0 0 a 0119 Z LO �0 (- m 0) O .4 N M U') �0 1- m m O -1 N M .4 .--I .-1 .-4 .-1 N N N N N N N N N M M M M 9 O H z N Cl ri N N N U C7 (7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 C7 C7 (7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 U' C7 O W H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 0 r>; W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a H H H H H H H H Hp H H H H H H H H a r •• rh Ln N CO QO r- O O l0 r-1 W W M M M M W tl' e-1 H N N l� dD M M O O N m l0 lO l0 lO O l0 l0 O z H W z d N 10 CV CO oo O Co 10 £ O N c . N N r+ N O �r 1- 1` r- 1` N N m !- >+ O d M a O O co N O O H H 0 MCD v cli w W Q � a rOi LO W W Q z W U H W a z o£ ai x x 0 0 £ w W CO (Yi 00 Cll fIa O] H A £ W £ £ £ £ £ £ £ H C7 0 O w z FC W W W W W W w FC H Q H O x r1 a a a a a a a a O O w 0 w 0 x w 0 W" H x x x x x x x M H WE- O U z a H U H C!) (!1 !n CJ) (J) (n m z £ U U U U U H H O w O H O U U U U U U U O 4 0 H H O > a A a 0 H A w a Q o z U z >4 >+ >+ >i >4 >+ O Z U z W W W W W E+ Q 0 Ci z H U) W H H H H E-+ H E-H H W Z W Z Z Z Z Z O Z H E-+ W W > H H H H H H H Z> O> O O O O O£ u a > A W W w W W w w w O x x x x x w H a 0 a4 a4 a w a4 !w 04 M U a4 04 a a4 a a W H 0 a O N O O N ri O W N o0 0 m 1` O cr Ln (n > 1 > co N r-1 N r-I r-1 .-i N N tD z z£ M rn rn rn rn M c .-+ ao H A H :D r-1 cW r-I r-4 c- tr H z r� %�o �D ko I- r 1- r [] 1` U') u-) LO u-1 r r c- Ir x z w < w w m a 1 O O 14 H a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c' 0) N M W o O O O O O O O O O O O O O l0 r-I M Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O t0 l0 (0 LO coO .-1 ri M r- r-I M 1- M LO Ln in T) Ln 1` r r-I m z O O o m w (D m O M M m m M M N N M O t- f- [� l0 l0 t� l0 l0 �0 l0 l0 l0 �D l0 l0 l0 lD l0 H z . I N N r-I M m N N r 1 M M M M M Cw T C• M O LO O O Ln LO in 0 O O u-) in Ln Ln LO Ln un ul 1- 0 ' -1 N N N N N rr N ra r I ri r-I -1 1-1 V' vT IT l0 U U r-I .-+ r-i ,-� r-I r-I r-1 r-I r-I r-I r•i ri ri ri '-+ r-1 '-1 r-i Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r-1 .-4 '-A r-1 r-I -4 r-I r-I r 4 H r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I r 4 e-1 r-4 C` M O O Lr) x x x x x x x x 1 U U U U U U U U Z >4 ms ms & w F-I E- E H E+ E -+ E+ F4 F4 U al 1z1 w w w w w w w w f34 z z z z z z z z z Q a w w w w as w w w O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >+ a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N N N N N N N a O ai cxn m m m ax) m m a a a a w z w z z z a o a Q< Q<< O w w w w w w w w w cn z U U U U U U U U U) > > > > > > > > > H w W z O > tl0 t0 l0 l0 110 l0 to l0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O >+ O O O O O O O O O NNNNNNNNN U H H H H H H H H H x a a a a a a a a a U H w W w w w W W W O W W W W W W W W W U a a w a a a a a cn > > > > > > > > > Cl) O I` N M ui M a Q H O H H z W £ a n Lo ACCOUNTS PAYABLE - AP5005 CHECK REGISTER 3:43PM 02/14/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK CHECK VENDOR PAYMENT NUMBER DATE NO. NAME AMOUNT ***NO CHECKS WERE USED FOR PRINT ALIGNMENT.*** 48415 02/14/02 ATT075 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 72.22 48416 02/14/02 BAK010 FRED BAKER 184.86 48417 02/14/02 COA080 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 500.24 48418 02/14/02 DEL050 DELL COMPUTER CORP 1750.00 48419 02/14/02 GAT030 GATEWAY COUNTRY 1184.00 48420 02/14/02 GAT045 GATEWAY 1276.71 48421 02/14/02 LAQ050 LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES 416.00 48422 02/14/02 MIS100 JACKIE MISURACA 250.00 48423 02/14/02 RIV040 RIVERSIDE CNTY DEPT CHILD 426.50 48424 02/14/02 SCA130 SCACEO 120.00 48425 02/14/02 SH0100 SHOP TOSHIBA 1750.00 48426 02/14/02 SOU010 SOUTHERN CALIF GAS CO 1017.93 48427 02/14/02 UNIO05 UNITED WAY OF THE DESERT 164.00 48428 02/14/02 VER200 VERIZON 136.53 48429 02/14/02 VER210 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION 69.00 48430 02/14/02 WEL025 WELLS FARGO BANKCARD 9456.48 CHECK TOTAL 18,774.47 053 z F 0 Z cr LA lD (- m Cl m N M N O N o W C7 E Q U E-F Q CO C7 W F C7 W F U' i W F C7 i W E4 C7 W F U' W F U' E W F m rn m F C7 W F 0) rn rn F U E W F U' E W F 0 E w F a a M M F Z W F z N N N l0 O C C I` l0 O U') M O O O O O C r1 r l0 O O l0 O O O O to t0 O O O O O O M 01 t� x >4 Q'" a D cc0 OD H co M H 1-4 Lr) 1— 1 OD e-1 r-I r N -4 .-•1 C N N N N LO r'1 r-1 O ri N N lD OD W N O O O O ri (— O O O O O Ln O O 0 0 I- OD r-4 0 In x U a In (r r-1 F� 0 o DD —4U' r4 o N -4 0 ri d' (n N > H N qr N .-+ a C7 o u1 cr .-+ U > (n D a x W x a W cn a a a W r>r w U a I x (n a a W cn z O w z O x a rC F 0 a Q F O a < F O F D a< x 0 a E+ 0 x a U Pz D F s D Q a E+ E O O a Q F O a a 1 .I Q F O W U z < z a x Q << F O O i a F O z O H a Q F O < x U< (Z D a F O W O H O H F a H L4 cn cn F a O w F a 0 U >> cn U cn F a O U w w F a 0 L4 w w F U x w 0 w E-H a 0 • s4 4-) (n F (x 0 > 0 Ft F sI a 4-J O V) F IX O F H D F F a O L4 w W F ac O U > z H rz U cn w a W 0 z w 0 a W 0 z w a W a w 0 z W o a 0 z w >4 o a 0 >+ z o W a 0 z w o 0 z w a w > 0 rl z o w 0 z w cn cn 0 z w >+ o a 0 z w > cn W Gu w x 3 > a 1-i > F Q 3 F Q 3 > a E W > a x W > a E W > a \ a > F > a \ 14 > r>r a U > a te: w > U)H Q C7 U W H 0 O > I z > z f>a X: (Y) v' LO U-) C' to V• ko OD r-1 u1 �o (n N m hl H x D z (M N l0 N l0 N In O w N z a a m w w x 1 O O �w F a js] a1 O l0 l0 O O O N (M to Lf) l0 w Ln (+) ri Lf') (M r1 LO (") rI O O O O O O O O O O O O In M r♦ 0 O O D z F Ln M l0 r 1 q k0 '-i M w 1-4 (V) l0 r I N . I ri N . r 1 N M N N M m •-1 r1 N N I� M l0 r 1 N ri Ol N lD z O M 1--4 N O %r C In a C Lo V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Ln m O O O I—LO In M U U Q O .-i 0 .--I 0 r-1 0 r-1 0 '-•1 o r-I r-I O r-+ -4 o .-i r-i O r-I r♦ 0 r-1 0 r-1 0 .-1 0 ra cn W H W < W < cn w >4 O 0 a H U E. O U M o Ln > W 3 >4 3 >4 a O a w cn 1 u W w w C >> w F au z O H U cz D z RC a U w E`-4-+ a z m H >4 a w I-1 a4 < r� a a W x s a w x x o U >+ 3 >+ 3 Q F z H D w H w 0 H u] a o w z (n o F z a w x Oct a r>r H w a O F w 0 w w U Q< ov U ou a a A W F w F a a z U h w > a U rC U) a O ci F D con z O D O >+ O F U H �C U w > Ln (— O F F O ri O `4 < 0 m O < O U O OD O Q O U 0 L O a W 0 0 M O F < 0 Ln V' O E-F c9 O Ln 0 Ol < a 0 O r-1 cn H 0 C O > H 0 M . I U 0 O ri O x 0 ri O D O ti22 Z cr) Ln lD r w m O r♦ N M a• LO Q .-4 H r-4 H N N N N N N w . 0 E+ Z N O \ C r-i \ N x N U m 00 OW E-H m E E E E E E E E E E C7 KC rn W W W w W W w W w W w E< ca F F F F F F F F F F F F a a M O .--1 N O r-I Ln M Ln Vr O O O M F O N M O 00 C Ln cw c' V' c O Z F w z cr O lD 01 O ri r N N lD O o lD O M lD a) r-1 O 0) 00 m lD r �+ O r-1 M r1 N O c Co w r-1 r f'r1 O m O 00 CY) O Ln O c 1- 4 k� a; z k� r-1 lD M lD H Ln O r i ri A C r-1 >+ rn FC z 3 O H A F w H F W z a H a a cn a (D a K z O < O 1 O O U O WO O W H E-H • F F Q F z w E-+ F O F i4 U U H z H a rZ 41 a > > w F w U) U) U) U) Ul U) W Z OH O to O M U) O WO U H O W U W W F O > !Z A •ri A A Z A Z F Z H Z H >. a A Z U z A Z W (4 Z rZ Z H rZ H a H a O D Z H U) w w z z W W W F W F a F a a m w W > z> 0 0> F> W> W a W a a Z> A \ x x z w A w a W D E 0 a a s H E Q E rn E cn w U w w U W O 1-4 r-1 .-1 1-1 1-4 r-1 r f 1-1 H A D: a1 a1 C lD lD lD lD w lD lD lD O W lD N a1 O O O O O O O O > 1 > CQ O M M of m m m m m m m Z z E N r-1 O w lD w lD lD %D lD lD H A H A r-1 Ln (M cr C' C' C' V' v Cr qr H z r c N N N N N N N N N A H x r M �r c c v cr c � v' •a z a < cQ W as x 1 0 O w E-1 rZ 0 o a 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 W O O lD O O N O O O O O O W O ow O O M O O D O- O O E A In In Lr) 0) r M r r 1 r M lD M z N M (M O fM V' M O M O Ln O N lD lD lD lD lD lD r lD r W lD F Z O M Cr N r I (r) C' r-i N N V' N O O In Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O .-4 Cr Ln r-1 r-1 ri r-1 r-1 ri r-1 r-4 U U ri rH r1 N r-1 r-1 r-1 r A r1 1 r-1 r-1 Ft o 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 -4 r-1 Ln r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-4 r-i -4 r 4 z F 0 a H W H U) a O W U U U U U U U U 0 x F/ d4 x d4 x a4 x a4 `w4 In F W z z z z z z Z z a FC O W 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a >4 z 0 0 W E'' Q H D; m w w 0; m rZ W. a z 3 Q a Q K< Q FC < co H z z z LU G, t=, Gu r 4 >4 N N 01 W rn rn rn m m m m m < a F H H H a .a a a a .4 a s a O H z z rz a a a a a a a a a A z W w W w w w w w w w w U) D >> > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Gu W z O > Ln O o o In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln O O O O . I N N N N N N N N O >+ O N N N O O O O O O O 0 O F 1-4 % a p; a a a a a a a a U H z W W W W W W W W W W W > > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 r d' a r r 00 r-1 a F 0 F F z W E Q a D In 023 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 09:45AM 02/13/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 47996 DEF 12/18/01 172.02 L00010 LOCK SHOP INC 47996 DEF 11/02/01 293.48 L00010 LOCK SHOP INC TOTAL VOIDED 465.50 INVOICE DESCRIPTION LOCKS LOCKS 001 0?4 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 3:53PM 02/14/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 48092 DEF O1/14/02 184.86 BAKO10 FRED BAKER TOTAL VOIDED 184.86 INVOICE DESCRIPTION MILEAGE 025 A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 4:01PM 02/15/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 48224 DEF O1/31/02 TOTAL VOIDED 2323.20 DOU050 DOUBLETREE HOTEL 2, 323.20 INVOICE DESCRIPTION APA CONFERENCE A/P - AP6002 CHECKS TO BE VOIDED 2:22PM 02/21/02 CITY OF LA QUINTA BANK ID: DEF PAGE 1 CHECK BK INVOICE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER ID DATE AMT. PAID NUMBER NAME 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 48440 DEF 02/21/02 TOTAL VOIDED 4.27 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 22.25 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 46.72 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 17.88 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 24.38 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 20.37 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 16.00 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 425.00 PET006 CASH/PETTY CASH 576.87 INVOICE DESCRIPTION PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT SENIOR INSPIRATION AWARDS 06=i 0z7 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Approval of Overnight Travel for the Finance Director and Two Members of the Investment Advisory Board to Attend the 2002 California Municipal Treasurers Association (CMTA) Conference April 29 - May 3, 2002 in Monterey, California RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR. STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve authorization for overnight travel for the Finance Director and two Members of the Investment Advisory Board to attend the five day 2002 California Municipal Treasurers Association (CMTA) Conference — April 29 - May 3, 2002 in Monterey, California. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The Annual California Municipal Treasurers Association Conference will be held April 29 — May 3, 2002 in Monterey. Account No. 101-151-637-000 Travel and Training contains $2,400.00 for two Investment Advisory Board Members and $1,200.00 for staff to attend this conference. The CMTA 2002 Annual Conference is a 5-day conference that focuses on financial issues affecting local governments. Conference information is attached (Attachment 1). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve authorization for overnight travel for the Finance Director and two Members of the Investment Advisory Board to attend the CMTA Conference in Monterey, California, April 29 — May 3, 2002; or 2. Do not approve authorization for overnight travel for the Finance Director and two Members of the Investment Advisory Board; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, hn M. Falconer, Finance Director Approved for submission by: f Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachment: 1. CMTA Conference Information 0 6 S ATTACHMENT 1 2002 t . CMTA 2002 Conference Registration Form The Doubletree Hotel Monterey , . Ni,�w cIEN� URV - Nrw CK r.t.ENGES - Ni.w SO IA � ION April 29-30, 2002 Pre -Conference CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSOCIATION May 1-3,2002 Conference You must be a current CMTA member (Active/Government Associate/Sustaining) to register. If you need to verify that your membership is current, please contact Frances Medema at CMTA's Sacramento office at (916) 658-8209. If you have any questions regarding conference registration call Mike Reynolds at the City of Redlands at (909) 798-7544. Please use a separate form for each registrant (photocopies accepted.) (This form is not valid for Commercial Associate members.) Name (Please Print or Type) Title Organization Name you prefer on badge Mailing Address Phone City State Fax Zip Spouse/Guest Name Is this your first CMTA conference? (yes or no) Special dietary needs? (yes or no) Thursday Banquet Beef & Seafood Chicken Vegetarian Registration Fees Pre -Conference Seminar [Active or Government Associate] Amount Pre -Conference Seminar only $ 115.00 $ Pre -Conference Seminar if also attending conference $ 105.00 $ Conference Active or Government Associate Early (on or before 3/15/02) $ 225.00 $ Includes all meals, receptions & Thursday Installation Banquet (on or before 4/5/02) $ 250.00 $ Regular (after 4/5/02) $ 260.00 $ Second registrant from same organization Early (on or before 3/15/02) $ 200.00 $ Includes all meals, receptions & Thursday Installation Banquet (on or before 4/5/02) $ 225.00 $ Regular (after 4/5/02) $ 260.00 $ Daily Conference Registration ❑ Wednesday ❑ Thursday Daily Rate x $ 100.00 $ Available only in addition to fully paid conference registration Includes breakfast & lunch only Additional Meals Wednesday Lunch x $ 25.00 $ Spouses & guests Thursday Lunch x $ 25.00 $ Thursday Banquet x $ 50.00 $ Events Golf Tournament (see flyer for details) Total Fees $ Please make checks payable to "CMTA 2002 Conference." Mail to: Michael Reynolds, City Treasurer, P.O. Box 3005, Redlands, CA 92373-1505.(A pre -addressed envelope has been included for your convenience) Advance registrants unable to attend may receive a refund of the registration fee less $25.00 processing fee by submitting a written request to CMTA at the same address or fax (909) 798-7670 by April 15, 2002. No refunds will be made if requested after that date. Substitute attendees will be accepted at any time. 067 004 IM rA CMTA ANNUAL CONFERENCE New Century, New Challenges, New Solutions Proposed Agenda Pre -Conference — "Show me the $$$I!!" (Active Government Associates only) 4129102 Monday "Treasury in 21� Century" 1:00-1:45 Technology - e govemment/commerce/banking 1:45-2:00 Break 2:00 - 3:15 Issues and solutions for credit cards / auto debits 3:15 - 3:30 Break 3:30 - 5:00 Best intemet sites and practical uses for treasurers 4130102 Tuesday "Money doesn't grow on trees - you have to make it!" 8:00 -9:30 Making money - Issuing bonds 101 9:30-9:45 Break. 9:45 - 10:45 Making money more or less expensive Credit ruing agencies 10: 45-11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:00 Making money ll - Other financing tools 11:00am Golf Registration Free Afternoon (see activities flyer in your registration materials) n � 2002 CMTA Conference Proposed Agenda 5102102 Thursday Early Risers Personal Balance Basketball 6:15 a.m. in the hotel lobby Morning Walk 6:30 a.m. in the hotel lobby 8:30 - 9:00am Breakfast 9:00 - 10:15am "Days of Our Lives I" - Treasurers Best Practices Banking Relations Cash Flow Model 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 -11:45 "Days of Our Lives ll" - Treasurers Best Practices continued Treasurer's Handbook/Update Legislation Update 12:00 — 1:45pm Keynote Luncheon Speaker The Honorable Rosario Marin US Treasurer (invited) Conference Sponsor Recognition 2:00 - 3:00 Benefits and Liabilities of Different Investment Methods Multi -tasking Treasurer Use of Investment Management Services Full Time Treasury Staff 3: 00 - 3:15 Break 3:15 - 4:15 Nuts & Bolts 4:15 - 5:00 Nuts & Bolts Wrap-up 5:45 - 6:15 Photo Session 6:15 Reception 7:15 Dinner 8:00 Opening & Installation 8:30 — 12:00 Sports Bar party! 2002 CMTA Conference Proposed Agenda 5103102 Friday Early Risers Personal Balance Basketball 6:15 a.m. in the hotel lobby Morning Walk 6:30 a.m. in the hotel lobby 8:30 - 9:00am Breakfast 9:00 - 10:15am Investment Options with Agency Paper 10:00 -10:15 Break 10:15 — 11:30 Closing Keynote Special Guest Speaker to be Announced! 070 0G,7 T a 0 4bf 4 4 Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCIL,/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Approval of Contract Change Order No. 1 for the Civic Center Campus Improvements, Project No. 97-09 BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: 3 STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 1, in the amount of $857,692.00, to initiate Phase II of the La Quinta Civic Center Campus Improvements, Project No. 97-09. The following represents the project funding sources identified within the City's Fiscal Year 2001 /2002 Budget for the construction of the Civic Center Campus Improvements: Park Development Impact Fee Arts in Public Places Infrastructure Funds Financing Authority Urban Forestry Grant $2,448,263.00 $ 348, 600.00 $122,526.34 $526,174.00 $1 1,000.00 Total Funds Budgeted: $3,456,563.34 The following represents the proposed project budget, including CCO 1 : Construction: Design (balance to close work activity) Professional Testing/Survey Construction Management Project Contingency Administration TOTAL: $2,723,301 .22 $136,145.00 $20,000.00 $50,601.84 $140,081 .97 $296,302.92 $90,130.39 $3,456,563.34 071 T:\PW DEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305d. wpd As illustrated, adequate funding is available to support staff's recommendation. None. The project was bid with prevailing wage provisions. On December 19, 2000, the City Council approved Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) of probable costs and authorized staff to advertise and receive bids for Project No. 97-09, Phase I Civic Center Campus Improvements. On November 20, 2001, the City Council appropriated $1 1,000 from the Urban Forestry Grant received from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; appropriated $520,577 from Redevelopment Project Area (RDA) Number 1 funds, contingent upon the future adoption of an advance agreement with the Park and Recreation Developer Impact Fee Fund; and awarded a contract to Tera-Cal Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,649,558 to construct base bid line items 1-13, 16-19, 21-35, Additive Alternate #1 line items 1-41 Additive Alternate #2 line item 1, and Additive Alternate #4 line item 3 (base bid area with colored concrete and walkway lighting). Phase I of the project as awarded includes the following: • Site Grading • Color paving with light broom finish in lieu of gray concrete • Color paving with exposed aggregate in lieu of gray concrete • Interlocking pavers in lieu of gray concrete • Stone pavers over concrete bases in lieu of gray concrete • Color paving with sand finish for future artistic work in lieu of gray concrete • Pole mounted light fixtures • Bollard Light Fixtures at the entries • A lake and island with waterfalls and a stream • Two bridges to the island • A geyser within the lake • Hydro seeded turf area and irrigation system throughout the site • 166 15-gallon trees • Drinking fountain • Retaining walls/seat wall at berms in five locations • Artwork On January 15, 2002, the City Council approved a financing agreement between the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and the City of La Quinta for park improvements to the Civic Center Campus; adopted a Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency making certain findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33445 to approve an advance not to exceed $2,448,263 from the Redevelopment Agency Capital Projects No. 1 Fund to the Park and 079, Recreation Developer Impact Fee Fund and approved the re -budgeting of $60,723 in r� TAPWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305d.wpd 0 0 �+' Infrastructure funds allocated to the Civic Center Campus into infrastructure fund reserves to be used for other eligible projects. If approved, CCO No. 1 (Attachment 1) will add the following amenities: • Historic Plaza Fountain • Tree accent lighting • Boulder walkway lighting • Pole mounted light fixtures • Larger size trees (24", 36", and 48" box trees) • Various shade structure including a pergola at the Historic Plaza, tryst shade structures, gateway shade structures and pavilion shade structures • Exercise stations • Trash receptacles • An outdoor stage • Benches • Gazebo With the incorporation of CCO No. 1 into the contract scope of work the Contractor will construct Phases I and II, which is the complete and ultimate design of the Civic Center Campus project. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Approve Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $857,692.00, to initiate Phase II of the La Quinta Civic Center Campus Improvements, Project No. 97-09; or 2. Do not approve Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $857,692.00, to initiate Phase II of the La Quinta Civic Center Campus Improvements, Project No. 97- 09; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respe , 1 oy. . Step h nson, P.E. Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Contract Change Order No. 1 073 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305d.wpd 003 Ole INcoxroxn'� 44 c� OF CONTRACT: Civic Center Campus Improvements Phase I CONTRACTOR: Terra -Cal Construction, Inc. 14530 Joanbridge Street Baldwin Park, CA 91706 ATTACHMENT 1 Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO. 97-09 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Pursuant to the terms of the original Contract Agreement, you are hereby directed to make the herein described changes or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications for this Contract. Unless otherwise stated all work shall conform to the terms, general conditions, and special provisions of the original Contract. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE The contract change order initiates Phase II of the Civic Center Campus Improvements. The following bid items are included: Add Alternate 3, bid item 1, Add Alternate 4, bid item 1,2 & 4, Add Alternate 5, bid items 1-11, Add Alternate 6, bid items 1-10, and Miscellaneous bid items 1-4. The estimated quantities and unit prices are attached and made a part of this contract change order. Previous Contract Amount Through Change Order No. 0 $ 1,649,558.00 Add This Change Order No. 1 $ 8573692.00 Revised Contract Total $ 295079250.00 By reason of this contract change order the time of completion is adjusted as follows: 0 days added/deleted to contract time. The original contract completion date is: June 30, 2002. The revised contract completion date shall be: June 30, 2002 Submitted By: Date: Approved By: Date: We, the undersigned Contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, perform all labor, except as may be noted above, and perform all services necessary to complete the above specified work, and hereby accept as full payment the amount shown above, which includes all direct and indirect overhead expenses for any delays. Accepted By: Title: Contractor: TERRA -CAL CONSTRUCTION. INC. Date: 074 \J t% T:\PWDEPT\PROJECTS\97Prjcts\9709CvcCtr\CONST\CC01 TERACAL.wpd 00* HISTORIC PLAZA FOUNTAIN SYSTEM 1 COMPLETE 1 LS Avu tip 1 GRI./1 I . � m 1 TREE ACCENT LIGHTS TYPE 2 W/WIRING 36 EA 2 TREE ACCENT LIGHTS TYPE 4 W/WIRING 6 EA LLIGHT FIXTURES AT SHADE STRUCTURES 34 EA TOTAL ALTERNATIVE #4 1 HLJLJ ML 1 Gl%l�n 1 9 V L. *ry TREES 24" BOX 73 EA 2 TREES 36" BOX 154 EA 3 TREES 48" BOX 9 EA 4 WASHINGTON FILIFERA 631 TF 5 SHRUBS 5-GAL 711 EA 6 SHRUBS 15-GAL 44 EA 7 GROUNDCOVERS 1-GAL 556 EA g PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA 34 EA g INSTALL CONCRETE MOW -STRIP 275 LF 10 LANDSCAPING BOULDERS 150 EA 11 FOQUIERIA SPLENDENS 3 EA TOTAL ALTERNATIVE #5 1 BENCHES 29 EA 2 OUTDOOR STAGE 1 LS 3 COLOR PAVING w/SAND FINISH 1890 SF 4 GAZEBO 1 EA 5 PERGOLA SHADE STRUCTURE 1 EA 6 TRYST SHADE STRUCTURE 1 EA 7 GATEWAY SHADE STRUCTURE 1 EA 8 PAVILION SHADE STRUCTURE 1 EA g EXERCISE STATIONS 5 EA 10 TRASH RECEPTACLES 8 EA TOTAL ALTERNATIVE #6 CITY OF LA QUINTA PROJECT NO. 97-09 CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TERRA -CAL CONSTRUCTION EST. ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL ADD ALTERNATIVE #3 $95 500.00 $95 500.00 SUB -TOTAL $95,500.00 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE #3 $1,064.00 $38,304.00 800.00 SUB -TOTAL l $73.364.00 $182.00 $13,286.00 $430.00 $66 220.00 $1 112.00 $10 008.00 $98.00 $61,838.00 $14.70 $10,451.70 $62.00 $2,728.00 $6.00 $3,336.00 $2 530.00 $86,020.00 $7.20 $1,980.00 $325.00 $48 750.00 $200.00 $600.00 1 REMOVE EXISTING STORM DRAIN 1 LS CONNECT STORM DRAIN LATERALS TO 2 STORM DRAIN 1 LS 3 RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE 1 LS 4 IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR VACANT LOT 1 LS I V 1AL IY11.7VGL.L/'u�cvvv .. �.�•� SUB -TOTAL $305,217.70 $1,600.00 $46 400.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $4.30 $8,127.00 $17,300.00 $17,300.00 $81,500.00 $81,500.00 $38,000.00 38,000.00 $49,350.00 $49,350.00 $103,000.00 $103 000.00 $1250.00 $6,250.00 $1 200.00 $9 600.00 SUB -TOTAL $367,027.00 $7 740.00 $7,740.00 $3,363.00 $3,363.00 $1200.00 $1,200.00 $4 280.00 $4 280.00 TOTAL OF ALL ALTERNATIVES $857,691.70 v L b b T � D 4 Qum& AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCIL,/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Approval of Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate for the Various Left Turn Pock Modifications Project 2001-09 BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) and authorize staff to advertise the bid of Capital Improvement Project No. 2001-09, Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications; and approve the Plans Specifications and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) of other minor miscellaneous maintenance improvements and authorize staff to advertise the minor maintenance improvements as a part of the Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications. The following represents the available funding and funding sources for the proposed improvements to be advertised as part of the Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications: Project Funding Source Available Various Left Turn Pocket DIF Transportation (401-000-493-000) $40,200 Modifications Miscellaneous Street Street Reconstruction (101-453-609-601) $73,741 Maintenance Miscellaneous Storm Drain Storm Drain Maintenance & $57,827 Maintenance Improvements (101-453-621-631) TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING: $171,768 076 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305f.wpd Based upon the Engineer's estimated construction costs in the amount of $129,575.00, the following represents the probable project construction budget: Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications $6,225 Calle Tampico & Eisenhower Dr. Pavement Reconstruction $7,850 Adams Street Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction $7,075 Avenida Bermudas & Avenue 52 Pavement Reconstruction $9,425 Installation of Sand Filters (Storm Drain) - 3 locations $99,000 Sub -Total Engineer's Estimated Construction Costs: $129,575 Inspection/Testing: $12,634 Administration: $6,479 Subtotal: $148,687 Contingency: $14,869 Total Anticipated Costs: $163,556 As illustrated, sufficient funding exists to support the staff recommendation. However, it may be necessary to internally shift maintenance revenue assigned within the budget for street reconstruction to the maintenance budget for storm drains. The project is funded entirely with locally generated revenue. The project is not required to be bid as a prevailing wage improvement. Subsequently, cost savings may be realized during construction. On July 3, 2001, the City Council approved and adopted the Fiscal Year 2001 /2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications in the La Quinta Village, Project No. 2001-09 is included within the adopted CIP. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2001 /2002 Operating Budget for the Public Works Department includes revenue for miscellaneous street reconstruction and maintenance and repair of storm drain facilities. 07 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305f.wpd 0 0 2, The work associated with each of the proposed improvements is similar in scope and character. Subsequently, staff is recommending the proposed street maintenance improvements, sand filter drainage improvements, and the various left turn pocket modifications be combined and bid for construction as a single project. This action should result in a cost savings due to economies of scale. The combined projects will provide the following: 1 . Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications (Project 2001-09). This project is located at the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 52, and at the intersection of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. The proposed improvements will shorten and reconstruct the median nose of the left turn pockets. 2. Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive Pavement Reconstruction. This project is located at the intersection of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive. The proposed improvements will remove and reconstruct the deteriorated pavement within the intersection. 3. Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52 Pavement Reconstruction. This project is located at the intersection of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52. The proposed improvements will remove and reconstruct the deteriorated pavement within the intersection. 4. Adams Street Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction. This project is located along Adams Street near the Whitewater River Channel. The proposed improvements will remove and reconstruct the sidewalk and construct drainage inlets and connection to the existing storm drain. 5. Installation of Sand Filters at three Locations. This project is located within the Palm Royale Park at La Palma Drive and Adams Street; within the retention basin at Camino Azul & Camino Rosada; and within the Desert Stream Retention Basin. The Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) are now complete and are available for review within the Public Works/Engineering Department. Assuming authorization to receive bids on March 5, 2002, the following represents how the project is expected to proceed: Approval of PS&E/Authorization to Receive Bids March 5, 2002 Bid Period Approval to Award Construction Construction Period (45 days) Accept Improvements March 11, 2002 - April 8, 2002 April 16, 2002 May 1, 2002 - June 15, 2002 July 2002 07.9 TAPW DEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305f. wpd The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and authorize staff to advertise the bid of Capital Improvement Project No. 2001-09, Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications; and approve the Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate of other minor miscellaneous maintenance improvements and authorize staff to advertise the minor miscellaneous maintenance improvements as a part of the Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications; or 2. Do not approve the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate and do not authorize staff to advertise the bid of Capital Improvement Project No. 2001-09, Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications; and do not approve the Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate of other minor miscellaneous maintenance improvements and do not authorize staff to advertise the minor maintenance improvements as a part of the Various Left Turn Pocket Modifications; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Res pec y.-su ' to , oy eph nson, P.E. Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: -1;;n JA4t-, 4,*oeT"06 Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager 075 J4 00A T:\PWDEPT\COUNC1L\2002\020305f wpd T6 0 (4) 4,!t 4 49&ta AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: Acceptance of Citywide Streets and STUDY SESSION: Sidewalk Improvements, Project No. 2000-04 PUBLIC HEARING: Accept Project No. 2000-04, Citywide Streets and Sidewalk Improvements as 100% complete; and Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Office of the County Recorder; and Authorize staff to release retention in the amount of $56,284.64, 35 days following the recordation of the Notice of Completion. Adequate funds are available (Account No. 401-712-609-553) in the project budget to pay the contractor retention and to close-out the construction phase of this project. The following is a summary of the project budget and costs: None. Beginning Balance $1,053,879.00 Reimbursement from Storm Drain Maintenance Account $19,020.00 Subtotal $1,072,899.00 Total Contract Amount $562,846.43 Account Balance Remaining $ 510,052.57 5 T:\PW DEPT\COU NOL\2002\020305b.wpd n8n On October 16, 2001, City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $517,816.75 to the Contreras Construction Company to construct Project No. 2000-04, Citywide Street and Sidewalk Improvements. The project's construction effort is now deemed to be 100% complete and is in compliance with the project plans and specifications. Prior to filing the Notice of Completion, staff must receive authorization from the City Council to approve this project as 100% complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. A final accounting of this Contract is as follows: Original Bid $517,816.75 Contract Change Order # 1-4 $31,898.43 Quantity Variation/C.O. # 5 $13,131.25 TOTAL: $562,846.43 Amount Paid to Date ($477,853.20) Early Completion Incentive $4,000.00 TOTAL REMAINING FISCAL COMMITMENT: $88,993.23 Progress Payment 4 (Final) $32,708.59 Retention to be Released $56,284.64 The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Accept Project No. 2000-04, Citywide Streets and Sidewalk Improvements as 100% complete; authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Office of the County Recorder; and authorize staff to release retention in the amount of $56,284.64, 35 days following the recordation of the Notice of Completion; or 2. Do not accept Project No. 2000-04, Citywide Streets and Sidewalk Improvements as 100% complete; do not authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Office of the County Recorder; and do not authorize staff to release retention in the amount of $56,284.64, 35 days following the recordation of the Notice of Completion; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. 081 TAPWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305b.wpd 002 Respectfully submitted, Roy . Ste enson, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for Submission by: L4=L-j\ 9,AA Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager (-)82 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305b.wpd 003 T 0 0 jbf 4 4 Q" AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution Granting Conditional Approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 24197-5, Monticello BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting conditional approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 24197-5, Monticello, Century Homes. None. None. Tract 24197-5 is located west of Jefferson Street, north of Miles Avenue and south Fred Waring Drive (Attachment 1), and consists of 32 residential lots (Attachment 2). The developer has requested the City Council's conditional approval of the Final Map which will allow 30 days for completion of its processing. As of February 22, 2002, City staff has not received approval of the Final Map from the City's Acting Surveyor; however, it is expected that a technically correct map will be submitted within the time allowed with its conditional approval. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement has been executed by the developer; however, the associated securities have not been received. As a result, City staff has prepared the attached Resolution which provides for conditional approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The approval is contingent upon receipt, within 30 days (April 4, 2002), of a technically correct Final Map suitable for recording by the County Recorder with all required signatures except for the City Clerk. tw T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Staff Reports\24197-5.wpd Once these items are received, the City Clerk will affix the City Seal to the Final Map and offer the Final Map for recording by the County Recorder. If any of the required items are not received by City staff within the specified time frame, the Final Map will be considered disapproved and will be rescheduled for City Council consideration only after all required items have been received. The developer has demonstrated to City staff that sufficient progress has been made with the documents required for conditional final map approval. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting conditional approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 24197-5, Monticello, Century Homes; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council granting conditional approval of a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 24197-5, Monticello, Century Homes; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, R q F. f ephenso . E. Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Tract Map 3. Subdivision Improvement Agreement TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Staff Reports\24197-5.wpd �. RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LA QUINTA GRANTING CONDITIONAL FINAL MAP APPROVAL OF TRACT 24197-5, AND AUTHORIZING A TIME EXTENSION FOR SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO VALIDATE THE APPROVAL WHEREAS, the City Council conducts only two regular meetings per month and the time interval between these meetings occasionally creates an undue hardship for business enterprises and individuals seeking approval of subdivision maps, and WHEREAS, the City Council as a matter of policy allows a subdivider to have city staff present the map for approval consideration when the requisite items necessary for final map approval are nearly, but not completely, finished thus yielding to the subdivider additional production time for preparation of those items, and WHEREAS, the subdivider has demonstrated to city staff and the City Council that it has made sufficient progress with items required for final map approval, and it is reasonable to expect the subdivider to satisfactorily complete the items, including city staff review time, within thirty (30) days without adversely impacting other ongoing work commitments of city staff, and WHEREAS, Section 66458(b) of the Subdivision Map Act grants the City Council broad authority to authorize time extensions regarding final map approval, or disapproval, upon receiving it for consideration, and WHEREAS, the City Council relies on professional city staff to review all required items for conformance with relevant requirements, and it is therefore appropriate for the City Council to approve the Final Map subject to review and confirmation of the required items by professional city staff, within a reasonable period of time as specified by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of La Quinta does hereby find, determine, order and resolve as follows: Section 1. The final map for Tract 24197-5 is conditionally approved provided the subdivider submits all required items on or before April 4, 2002. Section 2. The City Council's approval of the Final Map shall not be considered valid until the City Engineer has signed the map indicating that it conforms with the tentative map, the Subdivision Map Act and all ordinances of the City. Section -a. The City Engineer shall withhold his signature from the map until the subdivider has completed the following requirements to the City Engineer's satisfaction. o 8j 003 A. Produced a technically correct drawing of the map area that is suitable for recording by the County Recorder B. Has obtained all requisite signatures on the map title page, except for the City Clerk's signature. Section A. The City Clerk shall withhold affixing the City Seal to the map title page, along with her attesting signature, until the City Engineer has signed the map. Section 5. The time extension for satisfying the requirements of the conditional approval for this final map shall expire when City offices close for regular business on April 4, 2002. If the subdivider has not satisfied the requirements in Section 3, herein, by the expiration deadline, the Final Map shall be considered disapproved. Disapproval does not deny any rights the subdivider may have under the Map Act to resubmit the final map for approval, or disapproval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 5tn day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 08 4 ATT,& _14L4FNT 1 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT MAP NO. Z44107 -S VICINITY MAP DUDEK & ASSOCIATES - PALM DESERT, CA - NOVEMBER 2001 COUNTRY CLUB DR. HOVLEY LN. E. z PALM DESERT O F 0 z_ a FRED MILES lNr\Tq TF 70 42ND AVE. cn ao � WARING DR. PROJECT AVE. W Q SITE 9 l;z _j Q o INDIO w -- WESTWARD HO w DRIVE U- U- Q o Q z � w � o HWY 111 VICINITY MAP NOT To SCALE 7 6 V) ATTACH W W -z70 0 z0 ZO JF-LL) YF ZOjz m20W IW0 I FJ NpN> LL O LL Id mOO W a w wJ0 O =w LL <I- Z O I W 7 0 LL WLL, W O O JI WWFJ aN r 0 W~NVW OZWWy IIOXN< I`z� LL N7 NI->Q O U <Or VI < N W ZV J-� mJ W ILL ¢I.. I<<N 2c W Q >NNZ OZ W(r. i IL Np O 1 Y QOzJ Z VWW ¢ }SN< Oi ¢F, O) W<�'0m .z _ JgZ yJjO U i0 I NY'a > IW VIaZW jyajV V o MLLW J< 00 z O VI W J W U W m m<W �. Z O WW�NOWti VIO< 2 2 O UVI�< JU LLLLZmN <�< > OY IVIY U� DV oo 3Su00 O_ 7 QO la rNQ <Q UJ O ¢ -ZW ¢W Vm0 03 OI.�- V10 W .<-.W ^m Z p ¢ I<-- 1 Q U ZmW- Z W 02W j >JXU O}QI<-z JW WY1F Y O� Z� 4Ym i} �JO�O F- Ia la ZaWN J LL(.1 Zy<j IYO�WN<N WZF IJZWWOZ<Z I..�ZZ �LL ZN_00 n� v < F•' W W Z ZW O N 0 W V ''000 NWO ) Z ]J �J R WLLOJ > p$<W m ZO f OV J <Oaaw <jZ Oy 6 Z < NSWD-Op O 7w �p2 OO 00>p i < YxU7 N O W O QJ�Q<QVINZ W) -O,I ZLLW U LLUZ ZW-O Na \0.2 N mW I 4 Q j N < VI <U<< Za LLUXW _W W Zr O 4W7<Ir-- O LLO OLLO Z ) I V<OV�wQ N<a ZUJ ¢ fGVW¢ JZ> OQ <j 'fir Q 0 Y U7 �--- YW pm _ O y h - J O WZ ¢QV aWZWJ �W U_OW 4 LL W <Z ZNZ <O << < LLJ N40�WNJ O i U J_F7 pj OQ yOj-4OF .0 m >O IO DOOW ZOW Y20 )U I<2�-WZZ¢W ZW�, rU < W ]J UIW N a 14y - C`<OW OR-W JW WIS-¢`rW 7m2 U< JI Q mZ OV Z N Q' I _ V w U p �nW a 1<-O a Z Oar¢ V U OZr Z pt Z > lL ~V 7< V m WO" FOO¢}VIO m QOOWZZ O N WtiF> ti <I JUOI� ~ I}O mLL mt2N WZO m Z WWR Z t~Z4 2Np Q wK oc9W oV PV10 WU VIZ W U N Q r F 4 O N O J 7NV OW d <�a ZZ S cr O~ U zZ0)Q O Q SW.N U UJr Jam <ZNppO O U m~ ZOJ2 I N <4J2�<O r WWIZWj)O¢<Z H UWVVOLL�r>VI<4 <cr 'z < ry��m O >` ~NWfW IK NU p<�UW 40<.< Vl N4 O ¢ LL W YRJW 4 '0 J� U >W i8Z WWOj%LO U >4 WOt W< ZO VI ONW J¢OJ Yi OZ rwx 9. Y )VOO¢ W FUWUw ip O W< ILL ~< H c<J W° a W �WZQVIVF p: F }U}ON Om 7 WLL« -<� xw yQI m 40�>U >O QW<I/7l VOONLL W cr 02 WO><< J VIEW z UI.��LLV Z O WZN�<�ZVI SI W U< <OW<nA^ ~ <O JVlZ W J V WO<Z<iU'IJUW I"' WmZ NF O Q^UW >UA WOK: Vox X Q m )WO_VIr¢W" O WJNVIW ~m¢ O�Y W X QU1Q.�W JZ<W W<Q aZW WSW ZFF LLW'Z4IWF ¢~W O �... O J WO04, X. I.OI.�� Q <N Z �O W (% ZZ W SOOOW < rrUWO Q S=~S VI < Q I%><�O<J <WJ > �I}W<�Wr �Z< < } W IO ONW < Qm J7 O I/i U _ZU0 O F- _ �w< O _wmluu w OVU m10 U :f <�V. IJW<W O U _m20W O LLV Z O N } O z W ZZ YY W I V W Z O W i 0< a7 W M z OW..WZ _ d ' > Wu ¢ W r ZQ IN Z QOQ¢w W O N O W W Wp O m u r OJ-U NW I W( 1 0 h Z I.} O<HO YWW~Z Q 7 1I Z W OF W. Q Q W �--1 UF40w.,0 Z Q H W ¢<} yWj <} ! aJ ¢ ♦< O V_ Nm0 N u W N VN¢i� Z O W N-\��. �v 2 Z ¢r� Z zwKZ�<O_ Z J �\)) N O O O ON �OON zWW OU wW:3 N FWOZ � � Z Z 0WFN W W Q`Z(WX Z. WOW!W01 ITO NO O VNW9W=~U. 0 OOCW N ZO 0 IJ VW WOZa -mOMJZ fj OOW< FO< \ 0 =< O<Z 0 6-2 • WOQ WNN<f¢ WZ¢_f 'm 1<11�71S.NN{Z'�NZ� 7 O0QZW Vm%V WLL�=LLZJ>I QOz)< O � N 0 O N WOO JWQ )Or)Vi Qz W >24).4WO zz OVW Z jOWW h Uj¢0 W p NONN W pW I Va<Z)n O N W ZbO\ U I n Z ZZ Ow iWO W<W I >O H Z Fz OO�c OWz . W - ~W ZU < �N < N00� WO par 4r 2 0IL m W O O we Q 7 ¢12Nx //V) �W WTYQWNa W Azo Nj^L Um wa W>ZvO << OVN1 < 60 WV}f F <$Z <ryryww� Q UO NIZ LLV/ OU W VI >Z < Z i W ZOQ LLO =E iWWI 2Q O mr WN %"WVWN Z �m� W O> F OFQ< Z ¢Z I LLW ZT U Z W < OT _UNFS O OoN ZNO U<¢ U <ON aW<UO V EIO Z0 D V` N o O (/1 a dw. Q QZO o O m=V) `d n V)~0 0 U Q a x W a Z 1 0 Z `zN OJ > U Inch JOB �o N� �< i roz ¢ w F W Z /� I-i ZZ¢< J2 JtJ6' O<LL OmmVl< 1N1yy <¢ VIN =ZW Nzz ¢O i = FW Wa 2 W VI0 ?Z W_ O) Z O YIW� UF<WLLW9 m0. aW 03 ZO O� 0W ZZZ WZW XF X. W< W 4< W '-W V p F, _SV yZ� W O<Z JWPU`Z J VI171 nOFWFF NNS 1t J� < LLZJ 'O VJ O 6z w iVl� iWV Q Z WIZ(WjWY. NF�WW < WO<J7,W Z p2 00(aj N N Z<Oi ZOF tiLLm F<GaQ, <U V10 �m }< O W�.IW NJ� Vi m JLLUZ 1- N < W WZZZZ K4 VI NIWn NO40 Z Z Z Wa¢0 0 in Q yy11 ZON W <U*VI Wa IJ. VI 00 -le Z Z �.JII aUa¢V a < 0 OW�V W ti \Z J m. .1 -wo-,q LLO OZ 3O7�OFZZ- J LL <�i�2 Z WIN.10 WINO -I NO <) �< ¢w.<�>6Qti FZ_W�Z42 v<OIJiIQO Z << tZ=ZWJ F ZpW ]WV Wf<UV VZO JO WI1��JV WW W- <W V�NVC Of ZwZON< tiH<�ZW 6 O ZZWFU4W OJW, •<F Y �r NZ Z_FN pZ 0� Ir Z O V WO W uNOO<O SIN_-� 1� VI 1-O nw< Z" W 01� QOo .r<ON < O LL N N Z <O Z%n U a04- LL' F LL yliZWw 3 < SS <=VI�F Ow W< <NQ 7y<-fVWZ a>W¢tO J2 ZV E, 0.wo aJZ-�J. O J LL<pLL'' � Z mFWR'yO� O o W= WO0 FV< WI%/i0 O .1 w:10 ¢O< ZN Z Wp OyV�I XZYI1�OIFI IQI¢ Om¢OQZ } Z J!- 1- W W_ LL WV1ZQ' /- O <J'o<JO F\'�-20W J 0 =OH Zi- X O- V ZWw W% O< J� yZ1IUZ 00= HOI>>.0 IY Z=�-<ZN= F¢ <> ZI NW WZzSWpO< <4iLLOW m -� < ap 0 iOX p00�1- J < Z OmU~W < WVWZO WZWZ 04 jjZ o mrzOW W < mw O�J J0Q'�W< O N Q Z O W< CO JZ Q N 71. SOOO<WN J<WhW WIZ ~< ZOV< aWOWOWW LL < O< _ > > Q J J V W IO-mW N< F- F ONT W,-. W W F Q o = WS <r LL WW00 O<V�W� FLL ¢ Wz-FrlT¢ ON LLW < WW OF <NrWWw <000Z'I < N < ZQOJ J-� Z W W OQI\y�Z O O ¢\Z<O VI ¢m LL WJZm ~ '<IZ� -tOVIW O�iJOJ Z> W ~ <7 UZ NW WO Od ZO f1� OQW<Zi WUWZZi� LL F W <LL¢iN V> O ZV<ZZ O 7 F 0, <m t Z Z N �f N �V<j �.N\V_Q Z U w¢ O�INa < !. Q Z VI Z VIW ;7 .OInZJ �<.! W 3Z VZUaZNN ra JW Li ZWQ W¢f WIA WOZVOOWZ U •WW.Y¢Q V O W QJ W .-. WO W<<I�I m �Q ti F Om. '41y, W 0 OU Qti O ZN J<4W O< �JW < V O QFm JOIUWW 4 J U F � mZ �ZF�I J < a00W W¢O J f/1 4 w 0 IL �< r<aW.N_ a«O>W W1y V O <¢ J WO�ZO W UQVIV< W O Z 1.� 2 == V Q O Z O a0 ¢ 03W2 ut Y ¢� W3F�ON O Om LLO Q W W< J F- m �' 0- VIO V1 N<0Z 000 z W O>S KVLj O OZOWUZ 00<O.uw V } ; _I.. Q `� JQYNO O � V) IZI <`bs YF<f. Y Z3 o > + YQu Wz �uzu ¢ ¢ }S~Fp<Z Y1. J< O LLrYivm� z V4 JJ O t > < vN+ a Z. W QZOcr i QVIQV WQW Z IWoi ZLLV W>a ¢WJ ¢S¢ ZWd I r ¢HWQ<�-1- ¢W 7pV1�2 V W W IWaNO7Q xw F 0 0 OO <ZZW=m N 7 F- W< O i r OV V)JZ J¢i 3 yy1�¢ O yWIQ OoNWU 03Z�IIA 3LLO�WF-> yy11 VI ON 3W< i(I, ORK WW¢>Z �4W y1 VI ULLZ Z .. SVI<uP�Ow<O leW<10Ir1 Z m m z Ov0.('Z~Z <J ZQ¢W Y00 H Z m Z NU o<narzii� a LL Z a s LLO V)<LL t MENT 2 0819, 0• In ~ w UW z W�0 o z �'<' [i7 1 4^Z QU ow O OO 0Gi O U) pAF2JWZ o <¢^ Q U<Z^ W-° Q oul o w <z4 N w ,RF^OJ��N' :aUoVYaoIZOWO Z�0 0 WNb0O F <0¢d IL �,0-zw S O' V J p Z,40. J JZ<WWO ZO J OOIV zOm JQo ✓- Z N3sWemi 3N V n ZWZ KO Wmm< 0 WO wmFnmci FO W4SO ZJ W U w MC W Q Z 2 V Ui u ova ar ^IIc�G7Z}_l cQvJn moo O0 �WO Va, K W I'M O <WNV¢^KKO NO I S �Z.4� 3Q oi mvoo 0ir mFw� z WO00J Q 1�• QZ4eZJZrN4ZQU< 2 T2 O UOxou U. moJ u Z om mm 1+W.w m'jLi z<mw f R Qwm oU(UFZ !) IU00 j.r_I!Zo Z0 OOQp20AVImwJ z O W Z ZO NO171MSYM WO <WZa0W W ryVWWVpW o paaUVouoo oolZw jZ ZWo6 Mzz O -Z4m EX zF!r Z ZF-o.O U¢ OM Z IO W W wo m �U• O ® O .. ai cr a a\ u K 0 OfWZ > Z1-4 a � FOB $ o a�w z EL <<n U Ip p U2 z Zp<( d a o Ti U U a e 5�� pF L) g U + J (300 U) W V) rFi a 00 NZIfI Q a CL W 0 _ Z InEj Wn C7 W��i U < LL��viW 6 o - 9 L/ L s z "9 'w 4F O�<O N ryZ x^IrmooN > WO O~Y14 WO JK �Q UU OJ ♦UW Z`rnWZry l J 3& ,L S N O S ?J 9 a/ .,f 3 1' 3 4v, N-CO 1000OK o!pvl -7 .t7!.7 — — — — — — — — Ao"LS9Z M _OZ,OZ.DO N �c i .BL'OLB - :'�.BYtt '�� .fB-96t -gr - - - -L l-Z►z_ _ -°-T'- =n u I / I� ------ -� SOTf►-aLF�=�3s iB_9a�:�. -- _.r.,0["G 9L - _ - I� 7--�1fi-----� I T—I I I—T_IiVI I ?--I T i`_�f1"i11 \I W_ lU N o, so xj!J I I I I I I I I 1 I n ry 1 I I I IH L Or- 6LU I� Q I (I--1t-- r �4a oIr_TI �f lc � fi W w �l� alI W nol Iz <ZLu oI � An-�=1 - �� 1 I5--4L O ^NCI I Z Zj - --Z z1 F t19) .K'flB M �OZ.OZ.00 N ooscL- - Lissos) .1'ssos-'(Oo►[l)-I f vf_ �\�/I I_IQ�� UNo 11p f,00-wl) « Z^1.00►[l �- I L-G 1 I _�--�_L_L-1-1-"i ! �J Z h- `-'_�-_\� �^ -1 n w 3 In T` m^ I a 4 F- I % � o^ ^"' I e sz� V� �nin: d (�-_ I J 1/�� \ iiT �I� \�/ / >� I I I I %� nl aLWi"~' + < v o Z. cZo I �_ T� 1 1�I I / \ �/ ID n 1 r - - < e I a ^ _ lV n' _ l _ _ �/\ \ 1 1 1 Z I f /I \ - 10 I N I N i z i U h o f N Ll ]rTN3nY 0 3SUN-bN �� 1 1 1 1 I I_ 1 / y I I I I m I O r-r-r rt 1� _-ii-y ; I �� /�\ N n l l r— m , o 0 uO1zU\noni- xNI o�4, 1 zi 0 osW�n - 0F,h o �W non�I < '? N ^ Z n rN = _ N Tom\ /�� T I > \ rS-I F-- il,osl h I.SS < (� N N WN N N In J m I \ / 1 C I l 1 ^• \ I N �- iS.00 9 ] ►9 - (. lZ'C l9) , lZ-L L9 •N (,00'069) ,00069 •00'SOII •Lt `_. (,OL'BGZ].OG -BGZ _ �•00'9- - y 1 M .ttB1.00 _ _ w 005v I ._ i(.L6'Zl9)rL6"Zl9i 1-1 'I ]" W �1 m m m I I m I n l / I` 16 9isz I I I i I I m L6199z�/ \ I M tt,B1.00 N I I _ ' I \ 1 I f —�a �-1__--�I _______ q a I I I I -- -------web-==io1RDT =_�`� I I \u�,•Cr T I FI 1 1 I ly sz-zz/[zz e w I"I�`I I PI I o 11 I$ w Z m) I I ai WN I� I i I 9071f7Z "IN 1J\rl_U_ I Rill� r WW m >°4 ~ I"_ U toml H zd 4u°n It w moo- <-QL oo U^Zv' Eo n 4J0 O n OU 0:\~ 4�0 -=h auln2m Oaf .4 nOmo a�Z� 7, 0.n rc'-tU -Fs',-i^ Z aV jZ tiro F V,O N N 01-] W"1 z w O � riUj2m O<IWII-kW";IjwO . � U m J n O p4 m 0 _ _ 3` 'U00 O ^ hod v^_�4•lu oaa� l n w�:o m a JU �aU Ua e W _ _ JWK I �2 O�Wv 0 U10 10 ZIi w\ a4JN^ l) 40p^Uy( U ? C Z4i~w\Wo ��Inarvn<� oI"FWio a<pr, �' uHlut JF <0: •-nuu 4�V14rvn _N3Z I y 21~i,W p<W O F.W♦OU O �,-rl LT O<�lY_ Z 0 4�H4N^<x L '9 'w z0"1 , OJ�70pW o:z<o EX. ! /a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - ------------- r N -- (.*G 059Z) ,tB"099Z M _60,LL.00 N E 7 Y 0 w S N 7 Y d 3 N !) Q 3 J U �i ng./ I lV 1 �� V) w w V) It o F ' o z � w wV wLn ZU 1 U W w om is Q O N o R _Z< O 0 W N N 0 ~ U W O ,,, o 0 z ° z w o Z /1 f WNTC 7 Q n ■ ioW z � o �U.Um ON` N FOB 2 o WO WW a� z u 0 O V En F zvi<W O d a --- --- i 1 .ao'ss i y`j O �=S 0 F � W OLL Z1IO-- YI In oJU U a 32 = Z N Wy EL �NO ' w Z A Ozo z m O A �J 0 Q ,09 0 �n n S n 1 1 00"95 �. U) 1V] a G G 6-4/96L .e 'YV o (\r l W IaI�I�Irl�l�� v — n n z z z z z � U m x WF- n n il co to Q z U a n< 0 Cl! J W 11'1 N� n r J w rva�io Z J J J J J J Q to Ui U) TT vJ U) v 009- V) w w V) w 0 w 2 N o Z Er Z a a O w tj zEn 4 O Ocr o10 W z wir Q a Q om a oN= o � r Z LL0 N OLn Oa W aWNZ o wLn W V) CD N =per Z o wo , wo O~Um WW Z uwia ow< > N ZWoo rc r 2 o Aw< OWW a� z Q�r 0 :, V WQw v I a Z,aK Z d< �QNW o Uu �_= u� 0 (rj V) W 4` o jZo d mCC ,n a. Z Z W 0 7L I Q M.OL,OLOON Vf)NgAV 077.7,7I.LNON n � Sl'9CZ M,OL,OLOON- p6'10t / Ct"1f1' - _ - m d .S['l6 �d IGL.1 -'i�.LO'Cf -I 1 •B6'Lf - .00G . S, IL07 8 M.oZ.oLooN t 1,25 M.ot.oz 006 , W CD CJ lj \J (J C/J w a 3 U = Z m to n W U sh in t w z d R m a a U z � J Z h w r J w � Z J J o 6-4/SG, "9 "W I W (\r U) ns ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF LA QUINTA SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT Tract 24197-5 THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 19th day of February , 20 02 , by and between Monticello, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider," and the City of La Quinta, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." A. Subdivider has prepared and filed a final map or parcel map (the "Map") of a unit of land in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, which unit of land is known as Tract No. 24197-5 (the "Tract") pursuant to the provisions of Section 66410, et sec. of the California Government Code (the "Subdivision Map Act"). B. Prior to approval of the Map, Subdivider is required to install or agree to install certain public and private improvements (the "Improvements"). C. The Improvements have not been installed and accepted at this time. D. It is therefore necessary that Subdivider and City enter into an agreement for the installation of the Improvements as provided in Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Improvement Plans. Prior to submittal of the Map for approval by the City Council, Subdivider shall furnish original improvement plans meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 2. Improvements. Subdivider shall construct the public and private street, drainage, utility, landscaping, and other improvements required to be constructed or agreed to be constructed under this. Agreement as listed in Exhibit 'A" and shall bear the full cost thereof. The methods, standards, specifications, sequence, and scheduling of construction shall be as approved by the City Engineer. 111• • -11-1 A. One class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "performance security," shall assure the faithful performance of this Agreement including construction of the Improvements, payment of Subdivider's fair share of Improvements which have been or will be constructed by others ("Participatory Improvements"), and payment of plan check and permit fees. A second class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "payment security," shall assure the payment of the cost of labor, equipment and materials supplied to construct the Improvements. A third class of security to be provided by Subdivider, hereinafter referred to as "warranty security," shall serve as a guarantee and warranty of the Improvements for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the Improvements. Subdivider shall furnish performance and payment security prior to and as a condition of City Council approval of the Map. Subdivider shall provide warranty security after Improvements are complete and accepted by the City Council and prior to or concurrently with the final release of performance security. Warranty security shall not be required for Monumentation or Participatory Improvements. However, the City may utilize Monumentation Security for performance of or payment for the work in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. As part of the obligation secured by each of the performance security, payment security and warranty security, and in addition to the face amount of each such security, each such security shall include and assure the payment of costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing the obligations thereby secured. B. Improvement security shall conform with Section 66499 of the California Government Code and one or more of the following: 1) A cash deposit with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company, at City's option. 2) Surety bonds, of the form specified in subsection 66499.2 of the California Government Code, issued by a surety or sureties listed in the U.S. Department of Treasury Circular 570 (latest version). () 9 �) T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd Pag�,1 3) Certificates of deposit, in City's name, from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal government and having a financial quality rating of "A" or better and a commitment reliability rating of "R-2" or better on the Investment Data Exchange (of the Los Angeles County Treasurer's office). 4) Irrevocable letters of credit, issued by one or more financial institutions meeting the requirements of Paragraph (3), pledging that the funds necessary to carry out the completion of the Improvements are on deposit, guaranteed for payment, and constitute a trust fund which is not subject to levy or attachment by any creditor of the depositor until released by City. Letters of credit shall guarantee that all or any portion of the funds available pursuant to the letters of credit will be paid upon the written demand of City and that such written demand need not present documentation of any type as a condition of payment, including proof of loss. The duration of any such letter of credit shall be for a period of not less than one year from the execution of the agreement with which it is provided and shall state, on its face, that the letter of credit will be automatically renewed until such time that City authorizes its expiration or until sixty (60) days after City receives notice from the financial institution of intent to allow expiration of the letter of credit. 5) A lien upon the subdivided property, if City finds that it would not be in the public interest to require the installation of the Improvements sooner than two (2) years after recordation of the final map or parcel map for which the Improvements are required. The lien shall provide a collateral value of three (3) times the estimated cost of the Improvements and shall include the power of sale of the real property, all buildings and improvements thereon, or that may be erected upon or made thereto, together with all hereditaments and appurtenances there unto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reservations, remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof. The collateral value of the property shall be established at Subdivider's expense through an appraisal approved by City. 6) An instrument of credit from an agency of the state, federal or local government, when any agency of the state, federal, or local government provides at least Twenty Percent (20%) of the financing for the Improvements. 7) When Subdivider is a nonprofit organization, security may be negotiable bonds, of the kind approved for securing deposits of public moneys with City or in favor of City, as specified in Section 16430 of the California Government Code, deposited, at City's option, with City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company. C. All securities shall be furnished in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit A. The amount of the performance security shall equal One Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of constructing the Improvements, including payment of plan check and permit fees, as estimated by the City Engineer or a duly authorized representative of the City Engineer. The amount of Payment security shall equal the amount of the amount of performance security, except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A, and shall be furnished as a separate security. Warranty security shall equal Ten Percent (10%) of the amount of performance security except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit A. D. At the time of submittal of security, Subdivider shall pay to City administrative fees applicable to the form of security provided. Administrative fees shall apply to the subdivision (final map, parcel map or waiver of parcel map) rather than to individual security instruments. The fees shall be paid separately for each different form and/or source (surety or financial institution) of security initially submitted and for substitution of securities but shall not be required for submittal of warranty security if the warranty security is of the same form and from the same source as the performance security it replaces. Administrative fees for security shall be as follows: 1) For certificates of deposit, bonds and letters of credit as described in Paragraphs 2), 3) and 4) of SECTION 3.B. , which require the establishment of evidence of the reliability of the surety or financial institution, the administrative fee shall be One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00). 2) For liens on real property as described in Paragraph 5) of SECTION 3.13. , for which City will prepare lien agreements and subordination agreements, administer valuation of the real property and administer the agreements over the life of the lien, all of which require legal assistance and financial advice, Subdivider shall pay to City an administration fee of One Half of One Percent (0.5%) of the estimated cost of the improvements secured but not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). 3) For other forms of security listed in Section 3 B, above, there will be no administrative fee. ()�.� T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd Page 2 of 6 Oil E. Participatory Improvements, if any, are identified in Exhibit A. Security for Participatory Improvements shall remain in place until the Participatory Improvements are constructed and actual costs are known and paid by Subdivider, or until Subdivider pays to City the estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements, and shall guarantee the reimbursement by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost of the Participatory Improvements. Payment security and warranty security shall not be required for Participatory Improvements. Upon written demand from City, Subdivider shall deposit cash with City in lieu of or in replacement of security guaranteeing Participatory Improvements. If Subdivider fails to deposit said cash within 30 days of the date of the written demand from City, City may present a written demand to Subdivider's Surety for payment of said cash and Subdivider's Surety shall pay to City the lesser of: 1) the amount demanded, or 2) the amount of the security. F. Security shall not expire, be reduced or become wholly or partially invalid for any reason, including nonpayment of premiums, modifications of this Agreement and/or expiration of the time for performance stated in this Agreement, without express authorization from City unless the surety provides City with sixty (60) days written notice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. G. Security shall be released in the following manner: 1) Performance security shall be released upon the final completion and acceptance or approval, by the City Council of the Improvements subject to the provisions of paragraph B. 2) The City Engineer may authorize partial reduction of performance security as work progresses, upon application by Subdivider. However, no such reduction shall be for an amount less than Ten Percent (10%) of the total performance security provided for the faithful performance of the act or work. In no event shall security be reduced below that required to guarantee the completion of the act or work or obligation secured, plus Ten Percent (10%). The City Engineer shall not allow more than two partial reductions of security furnished for any improvement agreement. 3) Participatory Improvement security shall be released upon payment by Subdivider of Subdivider's share of the cost or estimated cost of the Participatory Improvements. 4) If City receives no notice of recorded claims of lien, labor and materials security shall be released in full 90 days after final acceptance and/or approval by the City Council, of the Improvements. If City receives notice of any recorded lien, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act shall apply. 5) Warranty security not utilized during the warranty period shall be released one year after final acceptance or approval by the City Council of all Tract Improvements. However, if at the end of the one-year warranty period, there are one or more outstanding requests by City for performance of work or provision of materials under the terms of the warranty, warranty security shall be retained until the outstanding requests are satisfied or until Subdivider has made other arrangements satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. Permits Required. Prior to commencing any phase of work, Subdivider shall obtain all permits required for that phase of work and pay all required fees. Work performed under a permit or permits shall comply with all provisions of the required permits. 5. Off -site Improvements. When the construction of one or more of the Improvements requires or necessitates the acquisition of real property not owned by Subdivider or City, Subdivider shall use its best efforts purchase such real property at a reasonable price. In the event that Subdivider is unsuccessful, despite its best efforts, to acquire such real property at a reasonable price, Subdivider may request in writing that City attempt to acquire such real property. City may, but is not required to, agree to attempt to acquire such real property on behalf of Subdivider. If City so agrees, City and Subdivider shall enter a separate written agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Said separate agreement shall provide that Subdivider advance to City One Hundred Fifty Percent (150%) of the appraised fair market value of the real property. Any unexpended portion of said advance shall be refunded to Subdivider. Any additional funds required for acquisition of the real property shall be paid by Subdivider to City upon the conveyance of said real property to Subdivider. In no event shall the failure of Subdivider or City to acquire such real property excuse, waive, or otherwise terminate Subdivider's obligation to construct the applicable improvement pursuant to this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval. 6. Completion of Improvements. Subdivider shall begin construction of the Improvements within ninety (90) days and shall complete construction within twelve (12) months after the approval of this Agreement. Portions of the Improvements may be completed at a later date, as determined by the City Engineer or as set forth in Exhibit 1 9 L T:\PWOEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd Page Of 6 12 A. Failure by Subdivider to begin or complete construction of the Improvements within the specified time periods shall constitute cause for City, in its sole discretion and when it deems necessary, to declare Subdivider in default of this agreement, to revise improvement security requirements as necessary to ensure completion of the improvements, and/or to require modifications in the standards or sequencing of the Improvements in response to changes in standards or conditions affecting or affected by the Improvements. Said failure shall not otherwise affect the validity of this agreement or Subdivider's obligations hereunder. 7. Force Maieure. In the event that Subdivider is unable to perform within the time limits herein due to strikes, act of God, or other events beyond Subdivider's control, the time limits for obligations affected by such events will be extended by the period of such events. 8. Time Extension. Subdivider may make application in writing to the City Council for an extension of time for completion of the Improvements. The City Council, in its sole and absolute discretion, may approve or deny the request or conditionally approve the extension with additions or revisions to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. As a condition of the time extension, Subdivider shall furnish securities, similar in form and substance to those required in SECTION 3 herein above, to cover the period of extension. The value of the securities shall be sufficient to ensure the performance of and payment for Improvements that remain incomplete at the time of the extension, and to provide warranty security on completed Improvements. 9. Survey Monuments. Before final approval of street improvements, Subdivider shall place survey monuments in accordance with the provisions of Sections 66495, et sec. of the Subdivision Map Act and of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Subdivider shall provide the City Engineer written proof that the monuments have been set, evidence of payment and receipt thereof by the engineer or surveyor setting the monuments, and intersection monument tie -outs for monuments set in public streets. 10. Final Acceptance of Improvements. At the completion of construction and prior to acceptance of the Improvements by City, Subdivider shall submit a request for final approval by City. The request shall be accompanied by any required certifications from Subdivider's engineers or surveyors, approval letters from other agencies having jurisdiction over and approval authority for improvements required by this Agreement or the Conditions of Approval, and any required construction quality documentation not previously submitted. Upon receipt of said request, the City Engineer or a duly -authorized representative will review the required documentation and will inspect the Improvements. If the Improvements are determined to be in accordance with applicable City standards and specifications, and as provided herein, obligations required by the Conditions of Approval and this Agreement have been satisfied, and Subdivider has provided revised plans as required in Paragraph 11, hereinafter, the City Engineer shall recommend acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council. 11. Revisions to Plans. When the Improvements have been inspected and approved by the City Engineer, Subdivider shall make any necessary revisions to the original plans held by City so the plans depict the actual Improvements constructed. When necessary revisions have been made, each separate sheet of the plans shall be clearly marked with the words "As -Built," "As -Constructed," or "Record Drawing," the marking shall be stamped by an engineer or surveyor, as appropriate for the improvements thereon, who is licensed to practice in California, and the plans shall be resubmitted to the City Engineer. 12. Improvement Warranty. Subdivider hereby guarantees the Improvements to City for a period of one (1) year, beginning on the date of final acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council, against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished, and shall repair or replace such defective work or materials. 13. Release of Security. City shall retain and release securities in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this agreement. Prior to the release of payment security, the City Engineer may require Subdivider to provide a title report or other evidence sufficient to show claims of lien, if any, that may affect the amount of payment security released. 14. City Right to Cure. If Subdivider fails to perform any obligation hereunder and such obligation has not been performed within sixty (60) days after written notice of default from City, then City may perform the obligation, and Subdivider shall pay the entire cost of such performance by City including costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing such obligation. In cases of an emergency or compelling public interest, as determined by the City Engineer, the requirement for written notice of default and/or the passage of sixty (60) days shall be deemed waived and all other provisions of this Article shall remain in effect. n (� T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd P,�g4 6 15. Indemnification. Subdivider hereby binds itself, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, executors, administrators, guarantors, heirs, and assigns, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City and its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and assigns harmless from and against any losses, claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way connected with Subdivider's performance herein under, including costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. 16. No Modification of Conditions. This Agreement shall in no respect act to modify or amend any provision of the Conditions of Approval. In the event that any requirement or condition of this Agreement is inconsistent with or fails to include one or more provisions of the Conditions of Approval, which document(s) is (are) incorporated herein by reference, the provisions in the Conditions of Approval shall remain in effect and shall control. 17. Severability. In the event that any provision or provisions of this Agreement are held unenforceable, all provisions not so held shall remain in full force and effect. 30 MM teivi 11 feli A. All notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at their respective addresses indicated hereon. Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices mailed as provided herein and sent postage prepaid shall be effective upon the date of delivery or refusal indicated on the return receipt. Either party may change its address for notices hereunder by notice to the other given in the manner provided in this subparagraph. B. The terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements set forth herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors of the parties hereto. C. Neither party to this Agreement relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. D. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted with respect to the laws of the State of California. E. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to prompt payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees from the non -prevailing party. F. Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies provided for hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Date City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760/777-7075 n , T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd Page T S SUBDIVIDER: By: ,-�/ Title/.r Gary Weintraub, Vice President By: Title: Tony P. \Sci i a, Assistant Secretary Monticello LLC, A California Limited Liability Co. By Century Crowell Communities, LP, A California Limited Partnership, Managing Member, By: Century Homes Communities a California Corporation, its General Partner (909)381-6007 February 19, 2002 Date February 19, 2002 Date Reviewed and Approved: City Engineer Date Approved as to Form: City Attorney Date T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Martinez\Tracts\agreements\24197-5.wpd Page 6 of 6 015 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CENTURY HOMES COMMUNITIES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION On January 8, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Century Homes Communities was held at the Corporation's office at 1535 So. "D" Street, San Bernardino, California: SIGNING AUTHORIZATION: RATIFICATION OF PRIOR ACTS WHEREAS, the Corporation is the general partner of Century Crowell Communities, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Century Crowell"); WHEREAS, Century Crowell was formed for the purpose of acquiring land and developing same with single family homes; WHEREAS, the Corporation has determined that it is in the best interests of Century Crowell that ownership in each Century Crowell project ("Project') be vested in a limited liability company or limited partnership ("Project Entity'); WHEREAS, primary responsibility for management of the Projects has been delegated to the corporation's Project Managers, who are Kenny Felkel, Marty Butler, Rod Grinberg and Dave Cooper. RESOLVED, that in connection with the development of any Project, any Project Manager (or Gary Weintraub as Vice President or Assistant Secretary) is authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as general partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Manager or General Partner of any Project Entity, and as general contractor to the Projects, any and all documents in connection with plan checks, permits, entitlements, and all other documents relating to city, county, water district and other governmental agency actions respecting the Projects. RESOLVED, that in connection with the development of any Project, either Gary Weintraub, as Vice President, or David J. Miller, as Assistant Secretary, signing alone or, if required, either Gary Weintraub, David J. Miller, together or individually together with any Project Director are authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as General Partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as . Manager or General Partner of any Project Entity, surety bonds, and all documents relating to same, in connection with the Projects. RESOLVED, that Dennis Harrison, Tony P. Scimia, or David J. Miller are authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation, as general partner of Century Crowell, acting in its capacity as Manager or General Partner of any Project Entity and as general contractor to the Projects, all documents as required for the issuance of the DRE Public Report for the Projects. RESOLVED, that copies of these Minutes may be provided to any person or public agency requiring evidence of authorization. ALL SUCH PERSONS OR PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE THAT ALL AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES HEREUNDER ARE SIGNING ONLY IN THE CAPACITIES SET FORTH HEREIN AND ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ANY DEBTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION, CENTURY CROWELL OR ANY PROJECT ENTITY. All Directors were present and unanimously consented to the above. DATE: January 8, 2002 0198 Upa\minuus\corporat\010801.doc 016 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIAK) ) On this 19t" day of February, 2002 before me, Christy Jean Williams, Notary Public, personally appeared Gary Weintraub and Tony P. Scimia, personally known to me, to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. this area for Official Notarial Seal W TNESS my hand and official seal. U'� &411 �L'j Signature 0 N ry Public CHRISTY JEAN WILLIAMS g` `{ Commission # 1293935 Z ' Notary Public - California Z San Bernardino County My Comm, Bpkm f:eb 11.21MS DOCUMENT TYPE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT MONTICELLO — TRACT 24197-5 (6 PAGES) v1Y 4 AGENDA CATEGORY: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Approval to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Berryman & Henigar, Inc. to Provide Map Checking Services BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: ri STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize the City Manager to approve a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the firm of Berryman and Henigar, Inc. for on -call plan check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days. Plan check services are paid for from the construction permit fees on the related sub -division improvement construction permits. The construction permit fees are based on a percentage of the estimated construction cost for each permitted project. The permit fee includes plan check services, inspection services and administrative fees. A deposit for plan check fees is collected upon submittal of the initial plan check to cover plan check services in case the project does not proceed to construction. This deposit is credited against the construction permit fee when the permit is issued. As plans are submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department, they will be forwarded to the Consultant for review. Compensation paid to the Consultant for the plan check services will be made at a "fixed fee" rate of $750 per sheet of plans as submitted for review. This is the rate currently collected for the plan check deposit. Plan Check Fees are paid from the following account: Account No. 101-452-609-557, Development & Traffic Map/Plan Check Services Since the plan check fees are paid from a portion of collected permit fees, sufficient funding is available to support this professional services contract. None. 100 T:\PW DEPT\COU NOL\2002\020305h.wpd Improvement plan checking includes the review of plans submitted for subdivision (residential) improvements, commercial developments, and infrastructure improvements within the City's right-of-way. The plans are reviewed for conformance with local and other applicable (County, State and Federal) ordinances and standards. Plan check services include, but are not limited to the following: • Grading Plans including mass grading, rough grading and precise grading plans. • Street Improvement Plans including street widening, rehabilitation and new subdivision street plans. • Storm Drainage Plans • Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations and Reports • Traffic Plans including signing and striping plans, traffic detour and traffic staging plans and signal plans. • Engineer's Cost Estimate for the related items of work for bonding purposes. • Engineering reports including the LAQMP dust control plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Control Plans and Special Traffic Reports. Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (formerly Berryman & Stephenson, Inc.) has provided these on -call plan check services for over 13 years. However, they have provided these services on an on - call basis without a formal PSA. The proposed PSA will formally extend their services through June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement for 30 additional days. Prior to the expiration of this agreement and in accordance with the Consultant Selection Process as outlined within City Resolution 98-80, City staff will solicit detailed proposals from qualified engineering and survey firms. This selection process will be followed to select the City's on -call plan check consultant(s) for Fiscal Year 2002/2003. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Authorize the City Manager to approve a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of Berryman & Henigar, Inc., to provide on -call plan check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days; or 2. Do not authorize the City Manager approve a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of Berryman & Henigar, Inc., to provide on -call plan check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days; or T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305h.wpd 002 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully Mbmit . ,, R�6y F. ephenso¢,' P. E. Interi Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: V, '�" L a-"..___ homas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Professional Services Agreement 10� ♦wr 003 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\020305a.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, ("City"), a California municipal corporation, and Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (B&H) ("Consultant"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services related to On Call Plan Check Services for Private Development Plans as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Consultant warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.3 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified herein, Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 1.4 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof). 1.5 Care of Work. Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work performed by Consultant, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to City, when such inaccuracies are due to the -negligence of Consultant. 1.6 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services when directed to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation. Any addition in compensation not exceeding five percent (5%) of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increase must be approved by the City Council. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 1 of 12 t 1.7 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in Exhibit "D" (the "Special Requirements"). In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Special Requirements shall govern. 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with Exhibit "B" (the "Schedule of Compensation"), except as provided in Section 1.6. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon Consultant's rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. 2.2 Method of Payment. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Consultant for all expenses stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than the last working day of the month. Rweliffaw-MIXOT-META 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period 'established in Exhibit "C" (the "Schedule of Performance"). Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Maieure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his or her judgement such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Sections 7.7 or 7.8 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2002, with an option to extend the agreement for an additional 30 days. 10 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 2 of 12 006 06 , ••;D ►_ I Eel► • 1 •:► 4.1 Representative of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: a. Daljit Marwah, P.E. b. Guy Pegan, P.E. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The foregoing principals may not be changed by Consultant and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be Steve Speer, Senior Engineer or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of City. It shall be Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Consultant only from or through action by City. • ► :_► ►� 111111d►�► _ •► _►9:•P►Ti�� 5.1 Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, personal and public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Consultant's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be 10 15 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 3 of 12 007 primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The amount of insurance required hereunder shall be determined by the Contract Sum in accordance with the following table: Contract Sum Personal Injury/Property Damage Coverage Less than $50,000 $100,000 per individual; $300,000 per occurrence $50,000 - $300,000 $250,000 per individual; $500,000 per occurrence Over $300,000 $500,000 per individual; $1,000,000 per occurrence Consultant shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by Consultant, its officers, any person directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Consultant shall carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Worker's Compensation laws. Consultant shall procure professional errors and omissions liability insurance in an amount acceptable to City. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days written notice to City of proposed cancellation. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents. 5.2 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against those actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by City) and for errors and omissions committed by Consultant, its officers, employees and agents, which arise out of Consultant's negligent performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own negligence or that of its officers or employees. 5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 4 of 1 - 8 b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. C. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 6.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 6.2 Records. Consultant shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such records. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Consultant shall cause all subcontractors to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby. In the event City or any person, firm or corporation authorized by City reuses said documents and materials without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or alterations in said documents and materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and exonerates Consultant from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this clause shall survive the completion of this Contract and shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. 6.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City. • ► • : M ► 1 K93MATICIM02 107 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 5 of 12009 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefor. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, City may take such immediate action as City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.8. 7.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 7.8 for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. 10.3 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 6 of 12 010 7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City as previously stated in Section 7.3. 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 8.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which she or he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or general consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry. 9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section. To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA Attention: Steve Speer, Senior Engineer 78-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 To Consultant: BERRYMAN & HENIGAR, INC. Attention: Daljit Marwah, P.E. 2001 E. 1 St Street, Suite 240 Santa Ana, California, 92705 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 7 of 12 `d X 9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understanding, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgement or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which is hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 9.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 8 of 12 012 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA a California municipal corporation John Pena, Mayor ATTEST: June Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Berryman & Henigar, Inc. By: Name: George Wentz, P.E. Title: Regional Manager Date: Date TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 9 of 12 0 1 Exhibit A Scope of Services Improvement plan checking will include the review of plans submitted for subdivision (residential) improvements, commercial developments, and infrastructure improvements within the City's right of way. The plans shall be reviewed for conformance with local and other applicable (County, State and Federal) ordinances and standards with a sense of attention to details. Plan check services will include, but are not limited to the following: • Grading Plans including mass grading, rough grading and precise grading plans. • Street Improvement Plans including street widening, rehabilitation and new street plans. • Storm Drainage Plans • Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations and Reports • Traffic Plans including signing and striping plans, traffic detour and traffic staging plans and signal plans. • Engineer's Cost Estimate for the related items of work for bonding purposes. • Engineer's Reports including LAQMP Dust Control Plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and Special Traffic Reports The suggested tasks of the plan checker are as follows: • To check for design conformance to: — The approved Tentative Map — Related Specific Plans — General Plan and City Ordinances — Conditions of Approval — City Standards — The City's Subdivision Plan Check List — Other Agency Requirements such as RCFCD, CVWD and Caltrans • To review plans for sound engineering practices and constructability. • To check for accuracy of design in conformance with the City's most current Plan Check List. • To check general mathematics and design criteria. • To call for redesign of any portion of plans that: — Will not function due to poor engineering. — Is not consistent with the Approved Tentative Map or Conditions of Approval. — Will be potentially unsafe to the public. — Will be a maintenance problem to the City, property owners, or carry a higher operation or maintenance cost after construction. — Impractical to construct. All plans shall be reviewed under the direct supervision of a California Registered Engineer. TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 10 of 12 (' 14 Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation Payment shall be made in full at a "fixed fee" rate of $750.00 per sheet based on the number of sheets submitted for plan check. This rate shall be compensation for up to three (3) plan checks. Payment for additional plan checks after the third check or for special engineering reports including LAQMP Dust Control Plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and Traffic Reports, shall be in made at the rates listed in the Schedule of Billing Rates attached herewith for the actual hours submitted in conformance with Section 2.2 of the Agreement. An estimate of hours to complete the plan check (after the third plan check) or for special reports shall be made in writing to the Contract Officer for approval as specified in Section 1.6 - Additional Services of the Agreement. Compensation for the first three plan checks shall be distributed at the following schedule: First Plan Check 65 % of the Total Plan Check Fee Second Plan Check 20% of the Total Plan Check Fee Third Plan Check 15% of the Total Plan Check Fee The Consultant shall be compensated upon the completion of each plan check as indicated in the above schedule and in conformance with Section 2.2 of the Agreement. If a project is suspended, either definitely or indefinitely, the Consultant shall be compensated based on the last completed plan check. If the plan check process is completed prior to the third plan check, 100% of the plan check fee will be paid upon completion of the final plan check. TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 11 of 12 Exhibit C Schedule of Performance The Consultant shall maintain normal office hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Consultant shall be available to meet with City Staff during normal working hours with 48 hours advanced notice. The Consultant shall adhere to the following plan check schedule: Plan Submittal Plan Check Turn -Around (From Receipt from City Staff) 1 St Plan Check 10 Working Days 2nd Plan Check 10 Working Days 3`d Plan Check 5 Working Days For larger, more complex projects such as golf course developments, one (1) additional week for the 1 st and 2nd plan check shall be provided, if necessary to complete a thorough plan check. The consultant shall advise the Contract Officer, in writing, if additional time is needed. Normal plan check operations will be conducted as follows: 1 st Submittal Upon completing the 1 st review, the Consultant shall submit the "red lined" plans and a letter outlining the plan check comments. If necessary, the Consultant shall be available to meet with City staff to review the plan check comments. A copy of the applicable Plan Check List shall be submitted with the "red -lined" plans. 2nd and Subsequent Submittals Upon receipt of the 2nd plan check submittal from the applicant, City staff will conduct a cursory review of the plans. The Consultant shall coordinate the 2nd plan check with City Staff's comments. It is desirable to submit both the Consultant's and the City's comments back to the applicant in a joint submittal. The Consultant shall maintain a plan check log as follows to track the plan check status. The plan check log shall include the following information: 1) Receipt Date 2) Transmittal Dates 3) Who is Receiving the Information 4) Status of Plan Check 5) Project Description and City Plan Check Number 6) Plan Check Fees The Consultant shall maintain all files for a period of three years. Copies of requested files will be furnished to the City upon request. 114 TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-PLAN CHECK.wpd Page 12 of 12 016 T0 0 61 _0itT 4 4 QumtA AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL,/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: S ITEM TITLE: Approval to Enter into a Professional Services STUDY SESSION: Agreement with R.A.S.A. to Provide Map Check Services PUBLIC HEARING: Authorize the City Manager to approve a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the firm of R.A.S.A. for on -call map check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002, with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days. Map checking fees are collected with the initial application submittal of the Final Map. Currently, the map check fees which are paid to the consultant for map check services are based on the following calculation: Tract Maps: $1,000 base fee plus $10 per lot Parcel Maps: $500 base fee plus $250 per parcel Map check fees are paid from the following account: Account No. 101-452-609-557, Development & Traffic Map/Plan Check Services Currently, the fees collected with the Map Application submittal are sufficient to cover the map check fees under the current rate structure. None. Subdivision Tract and Parcel Maps are reviewed by a Land Surveyor licensed in the State of California for the procedure of survey review, mathematical closure, compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Land Surveyor's Act, the approved Tentative Map, the approved Conditions of Approval, and a current title report. The reviews include, but are not limited to the review of survey documentation, lot and boundary closure calculations, dedications and easement provisions, legal descriptions and completeness and accuracy of data notation. 115 T:\PWDEPT\COU NCI L\2002\020305g . wpd The firm of R.A.S.A. has provided on -call map check services for several years. They have provided these services on an on -call basis without a PSA. The proposed PSA will formally extend their services through June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement for 30 additional days. Prior to the expiration of this agreement and in accordance with the Consultant Selection Process as outlined within City Resolution 98-80, City staff will solicit detailed proposals from qualified engineering and survey firms. This selection process will be followed to select the City's on -call map check consultant(s) for Fiscal Year 2002/2003. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Authorize the City Manager to approve a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of R.A.S.A., to provide on -call map check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days; or 2. Do not authorize the City Manager approve a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of R.A.S.A., Inc., to provide on -call map check services for a term to expire on June 30, 2002 with an option to extend the agreement an additional 30 days; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, A R F. Step enson, P.E. Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: �Vr&j 0-4—A-- Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Professional Services Agreement T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305g.wpd ATTACHMENT 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, ("City"), a California municipal corporation, and RASA ("Consultant"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services related to On Call Map Check Services for Private Development Plans as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Consultant warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.3 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified herein, Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 1.4 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof) . 1.5 Care of Work. Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work performed by Consultant, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant. 1.6 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services when directed to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation. Any addition in compensation not exceeding five percent (5%) of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increase must be approved by the City Council. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 1 of 12 I 1 1.7 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in Exhibit "D" (the "Special Requirements"). In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Special Requirements shall govern. �i�i7i ►7 ITS"r[0701 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with Exhibit "B" (the "Schedule of Compensation"), except as provided in Section 1.6. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon Consultant's rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. 2.2 Method of Payment. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, and (2) specify each staff member who has provided services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Consultant for all expenses stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than the last working day of the month. 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in Exhibit "C" (the "Schedule of Performance"). Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his or her judgement such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Sections 7.7 or 7.8 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2002, with an option to extend the agreement for an additional 30 days. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 2 of 12 005 ERROR ••00►- •► • •�► 4.1 Representative of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: a. Eric Nelson, PLS It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The foregoing principals may not be changed by Consultant and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be Steve Speer, Senior Engineer or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of City. It shall be Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Consultant only from or through action by City. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 3 of 12 006 • ► :-\ 161 =11 01911► I 12 MEAN 11010 MAI►9 :•►� 5.1 Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, personal and public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Consultant's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The amount of insurance required hereunder shall be determined by the Contract Sum in accordance with the following table: Contract Sum Less than $50,000 Personal In ury/Prouty Damage Coverage $100,000 per individual; $300,000 per occurrence $50,000 - $300,000 $250,000 per individual; $500,000 per occurrence Over $300,000 $500,000 per individual; $1,000,000 per occurrence Consultant shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by Consultant, its officers, any person directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Consultant shall comply with Workers' Compensation Insurance requirements in accordance with State Worker's Compensation laws. Consultant shall procure professional errors and omissions liability insurance in an amount acceptable to City. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days written notice to City of proposed cancellation. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents. 5.2 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against those actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by City) and for errors and omissions committed by Consultant, its officers, employees and agents, which arise out of Consultant's negligent performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own negligence or that of its officers or employees. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 4 of 12 007 5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. C. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 6.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 6.2 Records. Consultant shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and make records and transcripts from such records. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Consultant shall cause all subcontractors to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby. In the event City or any person, firm or corporation authorized by City reuses said documents and materials without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or alterations in said documents and materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and exonerates Consultant from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this clause shall survive the completion of this Contract and shall thereafter remain in full force and effect. TAPWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 5 of 12 (� Q V O V 6.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City. 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefor. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, City may take such immediate action as City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.8. 7.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 1r)D T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 6 of 12 1- _ 009 7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 7.8 for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. 7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City as previously stated in Section 7.3. 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 8.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which she or he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or general consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry. 19`' T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 7 of 12 1- v 010 9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section. To City: To Consultant: CITY OF LA QUINTA RASA Attention: Steve Speer, Senior Engineer Attention: Eric Nelson, PLS 78-495 Calle Tampico 534 Rancho Terrace P.O. Box 1504 Escondido, CA 92026 La Quinta, California 92253 9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understanding, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgement or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 9.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. p t T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 8 of 12 Oil IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. CITY OF LA QUINTA a California municipal corporation John Pena, Mayor ATTEST: June Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney CONSULTANT By: RASA Name: Eric Nelson PLS Signature: Title: Date: Date 1 T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 9 of 12 11) Exhibit A Scope of Services Subdivision Tract and Parcel Maps will be reviewed by a Licensed Land Survey in the State of California for the procedure of survey, mathematical closure, compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Land Surveyor's Act, the approved Tentative Map, the approved Conditions of Approval, and a current title report. This review includes but is not limited to the review of survey documentation, lot and boundary closure calculations, dedications and easement provisions, legal descriptions and completeness and accuracy of data notation. Some of the specific items that are reviewed or checked include the following: • Title sheet format and certificates. • Current legal descriptions. • Correct assessor's parcel being subdivided per the title report and Tract/Parcel Map. • Check closure of subdivision boundary and individual lots against traverse. • Verify lot areas against traverse. • Check for correct mathematics. • Clarity of drafting. • Proper delineation and identification of record data. • All appropriate data in the title report is shown on the map. • Proper reference to adjacent recorded maps and ties thereto. • Proper reference and ties to found/set monumentation. • Minimum lot sizes meeting the requirements of zoning of the Tentative Map. • On -map items identified by the subdivision resolution are properly satisfied. • Boundary tied to the California Coordinate System, where required. • Verify ownership shown on the map against the title report. In addition to reviewing subdivision Tract and Parcel Maps, the consultant may be requested to provide the following services: • Review Lot Line Adjustment Documents. • Prepare legal descriptions and plats. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 10 of 12 013 Exhibit B Schedule of Compensation Payment shall be made in full at the following "fixed fee" rates as specified for Tract Maps and Parcel Maps: Tract Maps $1,000 base fee plus $10 per lot (including both lettered and numbered lots) Parcel Maps $500 base fee plus $250 per parcel (including both lettered and numbered parcels) This rate shall be compensation for up to three (3) map checks. Payment for additional map checks after the third check shall be in made at the rates listed in the Schedule -of Billing Rates attached herewith for the actual hours submitted in conformance with Section 2.2 of the Agreement. An estimate of hours to complete the plan check (after the third map check) shall be made in writing to the Contract Officer for approval as specified in Section 1.6 - Additional Services of the Agreement. Compensation for the first three plan checks shall be distributed at the following schedule: First Map Check 65 % of the Total Map Check Fee Second Map Check 20% of the Total Map Check Fee Third Map Check 15% of the Total Map Check Fee The Consultant shall be compensated upon the completion of each map check as indicated in the above schedule and in conformance with Section 2.2 of the Agreement. If a project is suspended, either definitely or indefinitely, the Consultant shall be compensated based on the last completed map check. If the map check process is completed prior to the third plan check, 100% of the map check fee will be paid upon completion of the final map check. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wN Page 11 of 12 L, 01 4 Exhibit C Schedule of Performance The Consultant shall maintain normal office hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Consultant shall be available to meet with City Staff during normal working hours with 48 hours advanced notice. The Consultant shall adhere to the following plan check schedule: Map Submittal Map Check Turn -Around (From Receipt from City Staff) 1 st Map Check 10 Working Days 2nd Map Check 10 Working Days 3`d Map Check 5 Working Days For larger, more complex projects such as golf course developments, one (1) additional week for the 1 st and 2"d map check shall be provided, if necessary to complete a thorough map check. The consultant shall advise the Contract Officer, in writing, if additional time is needed. Normal plan check operations will be conducted as follows: Map Submittal Upon completing each review, the Consultant shall submit the "red lined" map and a letter outlining the map check comments directly to the consultant. A copy of the transmittal and comments shall be forwarded to the City. If necessary, the Consultant shall be available to meet with City staff to review the map check comments. Once the map is in condition for approval, the Consultant shall issue a letter to the City indicating that the Map is approved and will sign the map as the City's Surveyor. The approval letter and signed mylar shall be promptly submitted to the City for further processing. The Consultant shall maintain a map check log as follows to track the map check status. The map check log shall include the following information: 1) Receipt Date 2) Transmittal Dates 3) Who is Receiving the Information 4) Status of Map Check 5) Project Description and City Plan Check Number 6) Map Check Fees The Consultant shall maintain all files for a period of three years. Copies of requested files will be furnished to the City upon request. T:\PWDEPT\STAFF\Schulze\Special Projects\PSA\PSA-MAP CHECK.wpd Page 12 of 12 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: Consideration of Request for Proposals for Economic Development Marketing Services PUBLIC HEARING: and Village Faire Event Planning Services RECOMMENDATION: As deemed appropriate by the City Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The City budgeted approximately $300,000 for marketing services (for economic development activities and several community services projects) and $62,000 for Village Faire in fiscal year 2001-02. Any allocation of funds for fiscal year 2002- 03 will be determined through the City's annual budget process. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: The City Charter allows the City "to utilize revenues from the general fund to encourage, support and promote economic development." The services included within the proposed Request for Proposals (RFP) will encourage, support and promote economic development. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: In 1998, the City embarked upon a comprehensive effort to market the City of La Quinta utilizing the services of a professional consulting firm. Upon the adoption of an economic development plan and completion of a market study, the City moved forward with efforts to develop a marketing program to promote the City. An RFP was issued to interested marketing firms in an effort to create a common theme and orientation for the City's economic development activities and develop a comprehensive marketing campaign that would effectively promote business opportunities in the City. The City's RFP process resulted in the hiring of Kiner Goodsell Advertising. The City has been working with Kiner Goodsell since fiscal year 1998-99. Some of the major work products completed by Kiner Goodsell for the City include: 1) marketing 123 plan/budget; 2) image, theme and logo; 3) collateral materials; 4) economic development infomercial; 5) shop and dine business retention program; and 6) various print advertisements. Kiner Goodsell has been involved with community services work as well, recently handling Village Faire and advertising for the 20tn anniversary celebration. Pursuant to City Council direction during the February 5, 2002 meeting, staff has prepared a Request for Proposals for marketing services for fiscal year 2002-03 (included in draft form as Attachment 1). In addition to an economic development marketing program (Component 1), the RFP also contains a community services program (Component 2) which includes event planning for Village Faire. As drafted, the RFP allows interested firms to respond to both components or only one. Upon Council's approval of the RFP document and authorization to issue same, staff will transmit the RFP to interested firms and publish a notice in the newspaper. The selection process will be competitive. Interested firms will be given until April 12, 2002 to submit their proposals, after which interviews will be scheduled with qualified firms. Staff will formulate an interview panel consisting of the Assistant City Manager, the Community Development Director, the Community Services Director and a Management Analyst from the City Manager's Office. Alternatively, pursuant to the City's consultant selection process, the City Council may select two Council Members to participate in the selection interviews. A recommendation for a contract award(s) is expected to go to Council no later than June 2002. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve a Request for Proposals for economic development marketing services and Village Faire event planning services, and authorize staff to issue the Request for Proposals to interested firms; or 2. Do not approve a Request for Proposals for economic development marketing services and Village Faire event planning services; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager 002 Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachment: 1. Draft Request for Proposals for Economic Development Marketing Services and Village Faire Event Planning ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MARKETING PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The City of La Quinta is located in the Eastern Central Coachella Valley. The City is bounded by Indian Wells to the west, Indio to the east, and unincorporated County areas to the north and south. Located approximately two miles south of Interstate 10, primary access is via State Highway 111 and Washington Street. Historically, the City has been identified with the La Quinta Resort & Club (most commonly known as the La Quinta Hotel), the PGA West golf facilities, and the annual La Quinta Arts Festival. With a current population of 26,300, La Quinta's early residential boom is now being complemented by a flurry of commercial growth and infrastructure improvements. Since 1996, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and the City of La Quinta have annually adopted and implemented an Economic Development Strategic Plan to guide efforts that identify, attract, and encourage development of new retail, resort, recreational and residential uses to the City. The Economic Development Plan serves as a framework for maintaining the quality of life in the City, and includes a real estate market study that identifies specific users and industries targeted in the City's recruitment efforts. In particular, the study points to strong development potential for uses such as sub -regional retail, light industrial/business park, mid -priced hotel, and live-work/artist studios. Moderate development potential uses include resort hotel/golf course, neighborhood retail, office space, and public golf course. Upon completion of an Economic Development Plan and marketing study, the City sought the development of a comprehensive marketing program for the City of La Quinta. Therefore, in 1998, the City distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for its first economic development marketing program with the purpose of creating a common theme and orientation for its economic development activities. The goal was to develop a comprehensive marketing campaign that would enable the City to more effectively promote its business opportunities. To that end, the City established a budget for fiscal year 1998-99 of approximately $150,000 for promotional materials and activities, including advertising, preparation of property profiles, kiosk/web page development, and trade show participation. The City's RFP process resulted in the hiring of its first marketing firm, which the City has been working with since fiscal year 1998-99. The marketing firm developed the City's first overall marketing plan, which included the following elements: 1) a recommended image and theme; 2) a description of recommended marketing strategies; 3) a menu of suggested marketing tasks, including a recommended implementation schedule; 4) and an itemized budget of estimated marketing program costs, including creation and production of collateral materials. The plan has since served as the basis for the City's overall marketing activities. 005 The City now desires to reissue a Request for Proposals for marketing services, expanding the scope of the RFP to include a community services component. The City is inviting interested firms to respond to one or both of the components included in this RFP. The first component involves the development of a new and enhanced marketing program for the City of La Quinta, including a new design with updated information for the City's collateral material. The second component involves the planning of six "street fair" type events (referred to as Village Faire), as well as participation in various other community services programs. The Village Faire events are held every first Friday of the month in the City's downtown Village area, beginning in November and continuing every month until April. Each event features vendors, food/beverage, entertainment and activities for kids. The City recently assumed responsibility of these events, which were previously handled by the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce. More specifically, proposals responding to this RFP should address Component 1 and/or Component 2 as outlined below: COMPONENT 1 - PROMOTE LA QUINTA TO RESIDENTSMSITORS, DEVELOPERS, AND BUSINESSES In the Coachella Valley. The marketing consultant will design a marketing strategy to promote La Quinta's life style and business/shopping opportunities. The marketing consultant will develop appropriate print, radio, television advertisements, and other advertising and promotion methods to convey La Quinta's appeal to Valley residents, developers, and businesses. Outside the Coachella Valley. Based on the current market study, the marketing consultant will need to develop strategies, programs, and activities to solicit interest among identified users, and create appropriate marketing materials, including, but not limited to, videos, print/radio advertising, brochures, internet web pages, and/or trade show displays and handouts. COMPONENT 2 — VILLAGE FAIRE AND OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS Village Faire. Consultant shall submit a proposal for the planning and production of six Village Faire events. Consultant proposals shall outline and describe recommendations on the following items: event objectives, target audience, overall strategy (activities, logistics, etc.), number of events and schedule, event coordination, estimated budget (including expenses and revenues) and other recommendations considered unique to La Quinta's Village Faire. Other Community Services Programs. In addition, consultant shall address various other community services activities. Consultant shall provide ideas on the most effective methods to support local events such as parades, picnics and other special events taking place in the City or being organized by City businesses; and advertise the "grand opening" of the Civic Center Campus - -- a major capital project between City Hall and the Senior Center. Consultant shall also be involved in, and provide recommendations for, the City's banner program, which proposes to advertise City special events and serve as an economic development tool. Consultant shall, in general terms, describe ideas for involvement in and advertising for other special events, in particular, grand openings in relation to libraries, museums and parks. 13 2 006 SCOPE OF WORK The selected firm(s) shall work with City staff to develop and implement the marketing and/or community services programs. Specific consultant tasks are described below for each component/ program. COMPONENT 1 - MARKETING PROGRAM 1) SCOPING MEETING: Meet with City staff and other appropriate parties to collect background data and contact information. 2) UPDATE AND/OR REDEFINE IMAGE AND THEME: As appropriate, the consultant shall advise the City the extent to which a new or updated image and theme will be necessary to communicate the purpose of the City's economic development activities. To the extent needed, the consultant should develop suggested images and themes for City consideration. 3) REVIEW MARKETING PLAN: The consultant will review and analyze the current plan and recommend new strategies and implementation tasks for Component 1 (as described above). This shall include recommendations on the following: a) A recommended new/updated image and theme (as appropriate) for the marketing program; b) A description of recommended marketing strategies; c) A menu of suggested marketing tasks, including a recommended implementation schedule; d) An itemized budget of estimated marketing program costs, including creation and production of all collateral material; and e) A definition of the role(s) of City staff in the implementation of the marketing program. 4) NEW AND UPDATED COLLATERAL MATERIAL: The consultant should create and coordinate the production of new and updated quality materials for the marketing program. Specific materials to be produced will be based upon the adopted marketing plan, and may include the following: a) Print, radio and television advertising; b) Brochures; c) Internet web pages; d) Kiosk promotions; e) Trade show displays and handouts. 5) BUDGET: Consultant shall develop a detailed budget for the marketing program, outlining items and associated costs. Approximately $220,000 was budgeted for the marketing program in fiscal year 2001-02. The actual marketing budget for fiscal year 2002-03 will be established as part of the City's overall budget process. 6) MONITORING SYSTEM: Consultant shall implement a monitoring system to assess the effectiveness of the various marketing methods to be used in the marketing program. l314 I 3 - 007 COMPONENT 2 — COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM 1) SCOPING MEETING: Meet with City staff and appropriate parties to collect background data and contact information. 2) VILLAGE FAIRE EVENTS: Consultant shall organize, manage and implement a series of (six) Village Faire events. Consultant shall develop and implement a plan for the planning and production of these events. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, vendor recruitment, advertising, entertainment, signage, security, permits, venue logistics, and overall event coordination. 3) OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECTS: Consultant shall be involved in various other community services activities (particularly in advertising and/or the planning process). Consultant shall be directly involved in supporting local events such as parades, picnics and other special events taking place in the City or being organized by City businesses. Consultant shall be responsible for advertising the "grand opening" of the Civic Center Campus (a major capital project between City Hall and the Senior Center), producing and placing all print and radio media announcing this opening. Consultant shall fully develop an implementation plan for the City's banner program, recommending designs and strategies for successful announcements of City special events. In addition, consultant shall be involved with the advertising and/or planning of other special events as needed (examples include grand openings for the City's library, museum, and community park). 4) BUDGET: Consultant shall develop a detailed budget for the community services program, outlining items and associated costs. Approximately $112,000 ($62,000 for Village Faire and $50,000 for other community services programs) was budgeted in fiscal year 2001-02. The actual budget for Village Faire and other community services programs for fiscal year 2002-03 will be established as part of the City's overall budget process. 5) MONITORING SYSTEM: Consultant shall implement a monitoring system to assess the effectiveness of Village Faire and other community services programs. MARKETING CONSULTANT EXPERTISE All proposals (whether responding to one component of the RFP or both) should include the following information: 1) Background on the firm and its experience in preparing marketing and/or event planning campaigns for both private and public agencies. Of particular interest are engagements involving clients located in the Coachella Valley, and communities that have characteristics similar to La Quinta. 2) A narrative that presents the services a firm would provide detailing the approach, methodology, deliverables, and client meetings to be provided. 3) Identification of the personnel to be assigned to this engagement(s), including their location and a resume of related experience. I -I.- 0 :I 4 4) A summary of any suggested approaches the City should consider for this effort(s). 5) A timeline for the preparation and implementation of the marketing program and/or community services program. 6) A summary of the professional liability, and errors and omissions insurance coverage the firm maintains. 7) At least three (3) public and private agency references for projects of a similar nature to this engagement(s) (desirable clients) and the project team members that would be assigned to this effort(s). 8) Submitted in a separate sealed envelope, a not -to -exceed cost associated with the preparation of the marketing program and/or community services program (if responding to both components, please provide two separate not -to -exceed amounts, one per component), as well as itemization of hourly rates of all assigned personnel, requested reimbursable expenses, and charges for meetings that are not included in the not -to -exceed cost proposal. SCHEDULE, SUBMITTAL AND CONTACT INFORMATION Contract award(s) is expected in early June 2002. The marketing program and community services program associated with this proposal will commence on July 1, 2002 and end June 30, 2003. Interested firms should submit five (5) copies of their proposals no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 12, 2002. As a reminder, firms may respond to one component of this RIP or both. Submittals should be directed to: Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Phone. 760-777-7035 Fax. 760-777-7101 CITY OF IA QUINTA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS MARCH 5, 2002 MARKETING/COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS i3 5 009 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Consideration of a $25,000 Funding Request for Continued Summer Service by American PUBLIC HEARING: Airlines to the Palm Springs International Airport RECOMMENDATION: As deemed appropriate by the City Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds for this $25,000 funding request were not allocated in the Fiscal Year 2001- 02 Annual Budget. If the City Council elects to approve the request, funds can be allocated from the General Fund Reserve (Account #101-000-300-290), the Special Projects Contingency (Account #101-251-663-000) which has a current balance of $30,682, or an alternate account as deemed appropriate by the City Council. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: The City Charter allows the City "to utilize revenues from the general fund to encourage, support and promote economic development." The Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority (CVA) maintains that economic development, tourism and resident access will be negatively impacted without American Airlines' year-round service. The City's contribution to securing year- round service would potentially support economic development in the City and throughout the Valley. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: On February 20, 2002, the City received written correspondence (Attachment 1) from Michael Fife, President of the Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority, regarding a $200,000 funding request from American Airlines for continued summer service to the Palm Springs International Airport. American Airlines states they need an annual $200,000 payment to insure Dallas/Ft. Worth — Palm Springs air service this summer (and a similar payment in subsequent years). American Airlines further expresses that without such a payment Palm Springs would have to compete with all other Dallas/Ft. Worth —West markets in American Airlines' system, potentially resulting in reduced service to the Valley. 137 Mr. Fife informs that the JPA Executive Committee considered the issue during their February 19 meeting, and passed a motion to forward a funding request to each active member of the CVA. Based on the correspondence from Mr. Fife and staff's follow-up conversation via telephone, the City is being asked to consider the following: 1) re -activation of the Airline Service Committee (which has not met in approximately one year); 2) re -installation of the Airline Service Committee funding formula (outlined in page 007 of the staff report); and 3) approval of a $25,000 contribution to American Airlines (based on the funding formula). If all cities participate per the funding formula, $225,000 will be generated for this program. The CVA represents it may be prepared to contribute funds if some cities do not fully participate, though the formula for this scenario is not addressed in the funding request of February 20, 2002. American Airlines has extended their deadline for receipt of payment from March 1 to March 15, 2002. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve a funding request of $25,000 from the General Fund Reserve (Account #101-000-300-290) for continued summer service by American Airlines to the Palm Springs International Airport; or 2. Approve a funding request of $25,000 from the Special Projects Contingency (Account # 101-251-663-000) for continued summer service by American Airlines to the Palm Springs International Airport; or 3. Approve a funding request in an amount, and from an account, deemed appropriate by the City Council for continued summer service by American Airlines to the Palm Springs International Airport; or 4. Do not approve a funding request for continued summer service by American Airlines to the Palm Springs International Airport; or 5. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager Approved for submission by: _7'z� r,-.? TA�_ r Thomas P. Gen vese, City Manager 130 O 4 Attachment: 1. Correspondence from Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority 131 003 ATTACHMENT 1 EMER GENCY A CTION REQ UIRED MEMORANDUM FEB 2 6' o 'a, FAX TO: ALL CITY MANAGERS C ` Ayvo PALM SPRINGS DESERT RESORTS® FROM: MICHAEL E. FIFE, Presiden CONVENTION AND VISITORS AUTHORITY DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2002 The Desert Resort Communities ojRicmideCounty: SUBJECT: AIRLINE SERVICE COMMITTEE FUNDING CATMRAL CITY DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WEus The JPA Executive Committee voted at their February 19 meeting to develop bath a short-term and long-term solution to summer service provided by INDIO American Airlines to the Palm Springs Desert Resorts. LAQUINTA PALM DESERT To resolve the short-term issue, a motion was passed to forward a request to PAI.MSPRINGS each Active Member City/County to re -instate the Airline Service Committee RANCHO MIRAGE funding formula allowing the payment to American Airlines for $200,000 for 2002 summer service to the Palm Springs International Airport. Attached is a copy of the funding formula and a copy of American Airlines letter dated January 25, 2002. To resolve the long-term issue, an adhoc Committee was formed to develop a long-term solution to increase service to the Palm Springs Desert Resorts. I will forward a list of those Committee Members and meeting date to you as soon as the Committee has been secured. Summer airline service to the Palm Springs Desert Resorts by American Airlines is a vital link to Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport and beyond. Economic development, tourism and resident access will be negatively impacted without American Airlines year-round service. We respectfully request that this issue be added to your next City Council agenda. The funding deadline given by American Airlines was extended to March 15, 2002. The commitment deadline is March 1, 2002. 69-930 HWY 111, SUITE 201 Thank you for our assistance. Please notifyme or Terri Milton in our office of y RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 760-770-9000 the date in which your Council will address this issue. 760-770-9001 FAX 800-967-3767 www.PalmSpringsUSA.com MEF/tm WASHINGTON, D.C. Attachment SALES OFFICE 115 NORTH FMRFAX ST., SUM 300 AI.ExA.NDRIA, NA 22314 cc: JPA Executive Committee 703-549-8026 703-519-7579 FAX yy i 1 005 0V25 '02 15:31 No.710 01I01 Amet-"nAlrlinesP .. January.25, 2002 Ms. Nancy A. Doria Airline Business Development Doria & Associates P .O. Box 13190 Palm Desert, CA 92255-3190 Via Fax: 760-;22-2-016 �Fo Dear Nancy: Thank you so much for traveling to .se` ,,;s..r �, .�.c •; gs.��_scro� _. ,as ai ay'S; '" was very good to see .you and to discuss these Issues. Following your sisit,-we d .ided fn aced ? 'ACVDFW-PSP roundtrip Tor March and April, 2002. 1 know that this added service, during your busiest time, will be received very well In your communities. As- for summer DFW - PSP service, we have taken a closer look at how the roundtrip has performed, as well as reviewing our most recent Air Service Agreement. While we understand Palm Sp ings'.Tun.ding_comnle-xitigr- and the dash- :c — cr+at+2-Ro q>:iararn summer service, we must make a sound business decision, especially jn these Urncortain financial times. Consequently, we have determined that American needs an annual $200,000 payment by March 01, 2002, and by March 1 of subsequent years, to insure summer DFW-PSP air service. ' Without such a payment, the air service must compete on equal - our historically peak season. This could, of course, place DFW-PSP summer service In some JeOpardy. I regret that DFW-PSP's summer performance forces American to require a continuation or payment_ If your contributors agree, please contact me and we will work out payment details and any other relevant matters. We appreciate very much the Palm Springs areas' past and, hopefully, cantinuing support for American Airlines - not only for summer but for all year-round. cc: Sincere Lauren Huddleston W.J. Aue R.J. F_ssell K. Willoughby P.D. $Dx 619E16. GALL,4S(ZOPT WOR7H AIRPORT, TEXAS CABLE ADDRESS A."Ip 141 006 Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority JPA Executive Committee --Airline Service Committee (ASC) Funding Formula February 19, 2002 ASC Funding Formula (1) $600,000 plus $400,000-599,999 $200,000-399,999 $100,000-199,999 Less than $100,000 City Investment in ASC $50,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 2001 City 2002 City City Investment in CVA Investment in ASC Cathedral City $111,884 $10,000 Desert Hot Springs $67,558 $5,000 Indian Wells $586,880 $25,000 Indio $57,381 $5,000 La Quinta $486,406 $25,000 Palm Desert $936,972 $50,000 Palm Springs $1,139,391 $50,000 Rancho Mirage $691,401 $50,000 County of Riverside $40,202 $5,000 $225,000 (1) Based upon city investment in CVA (2) Estimated at 12/31 /01--Unaudited 1� 007 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: Consideration of Selection of Representative to the Chamber of Commerce Workshop Information Exchange Committee RECOMMENDATION: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve for three consecutive meetings of the Chamber of Commerce Workshop Information Exchange Committee. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: City Council has established a policy of appointing one of the members to serve on the Chamber Workshop Information Exchange Committee for three consecutive meetings. Mayor Pena was the last Council appointee to this committee and he has attended three meetings. The rotation of appointees has been as follows: Council Member Perkins (2/20/01) Council Member Adolph (9/19/00 Council Member Henderson (2/1 /00) Council Member Sniff (8/3/99). FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve for three consecutive meetings of the Chamber of Commerce Workshop Information Exchange Committee; or 143 2. Do not approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve for three consecutive meetings of the Chamber of Commerce Workshop Information Exchange Committee; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager 14 '" AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: Consideration of Selection of Alternate Member to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RECOMMENDATION: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve as the Alternate Commission Member to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Council Member Perkins has served as the Alternate member to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) since January 1, 1999. At the meeting of February 19, 2002, he formally requested that the City Council select a replacement to serve as the Alternate to RCTC. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve as the Alternate Commission Member to the Riverside County Transportation Commission; or 14I 2. Do not approve the selection of a member of the City Council to serve as the Alternate Commission Member to the Riverside County Transportation Commission; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Jun eek, CIVIC City Clerk Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager 140 4 COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE• Consideration and Authorization to Send Out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Auditing Services and Appoint a Selection Committee RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: 15 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Provide staff with direction on proceeding with the selection process. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Fiscal Year 2001 /02 budget contained $34,570 for the annual audit. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The contract would include professional auditing services and preparation of the financial statements for the City and Redevelopment Agency. Also, it would include a compliance audit of the Redevelopment Agency in accordance with guidelines issued by the State Controller's Office, a single audit on federal financial assistance if necessary, and a review on the internal controls of the City. In addition, the contract would include 40 hours of consulting services to assist in accounting and cash flow issues. Conrad and Associates has been providing audit services to the City since Fiscal Year 91 /92. During this time they have provided not only good services in connection with the audit but also provided assistance in the accounting and cash flow areas. During their tenure, the City has received financial awards from the California Society of Municipal Accounting Officers and the Government Financial Officers Association. Conrad and Associates was also instrumental in the early compliance with Government Accounting Standards Board 34 which resulted with the City being one of eleven Cities state wide to receive the award. 4 147 As an additional safeguard, Conrad & Associates holds separate meetings annually with the City Council, Investment Advisory Board and the City Manager to discuss the financial operations/results of the audit. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Direct staff to renegotiate with the current provider, Conrad and Associates; or 2. Approve the Request for Proposals for auditing services for the next five fiscal years, beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2006. Authorize staff to initiate the selection process to contract for professional services, and appoint two Council Members to participate in the selection process; or 3. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Respectively submitted, A - A J' hn MV.--Falcone Xnance Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese City Manager Attachment: 1. Request for Proposal for Auditing Service 2. Contract Services Agreement 143 ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OF AUDITING SERVICES The City of La Quinta is soliciting proposals for auditing services for the next five fiscal years, which begins July 1, 2001 and ends June 30, 2006. The enclosed "Request for Proposal" outlines the scope of the engagement, information required, evaluation criteria, and other relevant information. If you firm would like to consider this engagement, we invite your response due no later than 5 p.m. on April 11, 2002. A selection committee of two council members and two finance staff members will evaluate, select and recommend proposals to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision on award of the Contract. Additional information may be obtained by contacting: John M. Falconer Finance Director City of La Quinta (760)777-7150 (760)777-7105 Fax Proposers must submit five (5) copies of their proposals in two sealed envelopes, with one envelope containing proposed costs of audit services and the other technical data, by no later than 5:00 p.m. April 11, 2002 to the following address: City of La Quinta Finance Department — Audit Proposal P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Date of issuance March 5, 2002 Proposed Deadline April 11, 2002 Since ely, ohn M. Fa co r Finance Director 14,E AUDIT EXPECTATIONS The City of La Quinta (City) annually issues a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (Agency) issues annually a Component Unit Financial Report (CUFR). The City may receive Community Development Block Grant money and/or other financial assistance from the federal government and as such may issue a Single Audit Report. In addition, the activities of the La Quinta Financing Authority are included in the CAFR, but no CUFR is issued. The City and Agency expect an audit opinion for each of their financial reports to fairly represent their financial position and conform with generally accepted accounting principles. The City and Agency expect the audit of each of their financial reports to be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Further, the Agency expects its CUFR to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to redevelopment agencies. The City expects the Single Audit, if required, to be conducted in accordance with O.M.B. Circular 133 and related correspondence. The City of La Quinta requests a full scope audit of all fund types and account groups in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Audit services are desired for the City, Agency and Financing Authority on an annual basis as set forth above. Proposals include separate quotes for the City and its component units. The City's accounting personnel will provide assistance to the audit form during the course of the audit. Cooperation may be expected in answering questions, preparing schedules for working papers, and preparing confirmations. The City would expect only reasonable requests of assistance from the auditing firm. DESCRIPTION OF FUNDS The City of La Quinta uses the following fund types and account groups in its financial structure: Number Fund Type/Account Group of Individual Funds General Fund 1 Special Revenue Funds 12 Debt Service Funds 3 Capital Project Funds 13 Internal Service Funds 2 Agency Funds 7 General Fixed Assets Account Group 2 General Long Term Debt Account Group 3 REPORTS AND CONSIDERATIONS - The independent audit firm shall produce the following financial reports by no later than November 20th of each year: City CAFR — 70 copies Agency CUFR — 70 copies Single Act Audit — 3 copies Management Letter — 1 copy - A management letter shall be prepared as part of the audit that includes disclosures of material and non -material weaknesses in internal control, disclosures of violations of finance related legal and contracted provisions, and auditor recommendations for financial and program management improvements. - Working papers shall be retained by the contractor for a minimum of three years after the conclusion of the engagement unless notified otherwise in writing by the Finance Director. In addition, the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. - The independent audit firm is expected to meet at least once each year with City Council to discuss the financial statements, management letter and other relevant subj ects. - The independent audit firm is expected to meet at least once each year with the Investment Advisory Board to discuss the City financial statements as they relate to cash and investments and discuss any internal control weaknesses with the Board. - The independent audit firm is expected to keep the City and Agency staff abreast of new developments affecting municipal finance and reporting, impact on accounting and reporting should the State of California impose state -mandated procedures, impacts of Government Accounting Standards Board disclosure requirements, required changes in grant procedures and the like. - The City expects that the professional staff provided by the independent audit firm will be fully qualified with the appropriate experience, and that answers and guidance given will be provided by partner/manager (supervisor and above) not seniors and juniors. Included in the fee proposal shall be an additional 40 hours of partner/manager_ time budgeted for research and assistance to City and Agency staff concerning accounting and other technical matters each year. The topic areas might include tax questions, the review of bond documents, cost allocation programs, employee benefit programs and cash flow projections. It must be understood that these hours are above and beyond the professional times associated with the audit. J �. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS Prior to submission deadline questions may be directed to: John M. Falconer Finance Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 (760)777-7150 Proposer must submit five copies of the audit proposal to the City of La Quinta Finance Department in two sealed envelopes, with one envelope containing costs of the proposed audit services and the other technical data. Deadline for submission is 5:00 p.m. April 11, 2002. The evaluation process consists of the following steps: 1. The proposals will be evaluated and rated by a selection committee consisting of two Council members and two Finance staff members based on the technical qualifications and approach of the proposer. Final proposals will be selected from those organizations and ranked based on their technical qualifications, approach and price score. 2. The finalists may be required to make an oral presentation to staff and the City Council. Selection of the successful proposal will be at the sole discretion of the City Council and Agency Board. It is expected the City Council and Agency will conduct its review and make a selection on or before May 7, 2002. THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT ONCE PROPOSALS HAVE BEENSUBMITTED, NO UNSOLICITED CONTACT OR DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THESE PROPOSALS BE MADE PRIOR TO THE EVALUATION OF ALL PROPOSALS. QUALIFICATIONS AND APPROACH As stated in the evaluation process, the proposal will first be examined relative to their technical qualifications and approach to the audit. Each organization's proposal should include at a minimum, the following information as is deemed necessary: (please number each item as listed below) 1) Names and qualifications of the specific individuals who would be assigned to this audit engagement. Please outline their relevant education and government auditing experience. 2) Description of any specialized skills, training, or background in public finance that members of the engagement team possess. 3) Description of experience of assigned individuals in auditing relevant agencies such as Redevelopment Agencies. 4) Description of engagement team's experience in auditing and reviewing financial statements receiving GFOA and CSMFO awards. 5) List of all current and former municipal audit clients, within 5 years, including Redevelopment Agencies in the Southern California area indicating reference, type(s) of services preformed, dates and length of service for each. 6) Description of local office's workplan and deliverable report. The proposal should include types of audit programs, use of statistical and additional components of the audit report. 7) The City has a P.C. base file server LAN utilizing Novell 4.1 operating software. The City uses Mirasoft's ForFund 3.1 software, which runs on Windows as most of the City software does. Describe your firm's data processing experience and capabilities. 8) Description of engagement team's experience and capabilities to assist in governmental bond reporting. 9) Sample of type of management letter usually issued. 10) Description of any regulatory action taken against your organization or local office. 11) Indicate the location of the office in which the audit team will be based. The municipal audit experience referenced in item 5 must come from the office. 12) A list of clients which have complied with Government Accounting Standards Board 34. 15 ... 0 U A FEES It is the City's and Agency's normal policy to solicit bids for audit services no less that once every five years, subject to annual review. Accordingly, your proposal should encompass the five-year time span. The City and Agency request a statement of maximum cost be made for the annual audit as set forth in AUDIT EXPECTATIONS and REPORTS and CONSIDERATIONS to include, in addition to "normal audit requirements," up to 40 hours each year of partner/manager time answering accounting questions raised by the City and Agency. All other expenses including typing, clerical, printing services, travel mileage and miscellaneous expenses should be included in the total audit fee. The City requests that the proposal also include a schedule of rates by professional staff classifications. The schedule should reflect rates for audit services and for consulting services. It should also reflect the anticipated distribution of hours per staff classification. Please itemize fees for the City, Agency, Financing Authority, and partner/manager hours. The maximum annual fee will remain fixed for the five years covered by the audit engagement agreement. Below is listed the cost of the City's audit for the last year: 2000-01 Audit of all funds and account groups of the City, including preparation and word processing of City financial statements, single audit, and Issuance of management letter. $15,786 Financial and compliance audit of the Redevelopment Agency. $16,831 Audit work associated with the Financing Authority. 1,953 Total Fee 34 60 INSURANCE Before signing a contract or commencing work on this project, the contractor shall provide that the following insurance requirements are in place. Please indicate if your firm would be able to provide proof of the below City insurance requirement. a. Worker's Compensation as required by law. b. Professional Liability in the amount of $1,000,000. Each policy of insurance required by this section shall provide for no less than 30 days advance notice to the City prior to cancellation. Each policy shall be endorsed to waive all right of subrogation against the City of La Quinta by reason of any payment made for 1 �! claims under the above coverage. ou9 OTHER INFORMATION Please list any other pertinent information you would like the City/Agency to consider in making our selection. We encourage you, if interested, to contact Ms. Amy Swan -Draper, Accounting Manager to obtain additional data, which would enable you to evaluate the scope of your operations so that you may formulate a proposal. Any financial information you may need to review is available in the Finance Department. CITY OF LA QUINTA The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles, has a residential population of slightly more than 26,000 and is located in the Coachella Valley approximately 25 miles east of Palm Springs, CA. Incorporated in 1982, governed by a Charter, the City is operated under a City Council/City Manager form of government. Four City Council members are elected at large to serve four-year terms. The Mayor is elected, serving a two-year term to be the City Council administrative head. The Mayor/City Council also serve as Agency members. The City and Agency have automated much of the finance and budget activities and have been in place in several years. This department currently consists of Finance Director John Falconer Accounting Manager Amy Swan -Draper Financial Services Asst. Diane Martin Account Technician Sharon Christiansen Account Technician Patsy Parker Account Clerk Missy Mendoza Secretary Vianka Orrantia The City contracts for some services to its residents and businesses including police, fire and refuse disposal. As of June 30, 2001, City employment totaled approximately 72 employees. Enclosed are copies of the City's and Agency's audited financial statements for the 2000- 01 fiscal year. 1� 0_10 ATTACHMENT 2 CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, (the "City"), a California municipal corporation, and , Certified Public Accountants (the "Contractor"). The parties hereto agree as follows: 1.0 SERVICES OF CONTRACTOR 1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide those services related to Executive Recruitment for Finance Director, as specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Contractor warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services. 1.2 Contractor's Proposal. The Scope of Services shall include the Contractor's proposal or bid, if any, which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of La Quinta and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Contractor shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Contractor warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has investigated the site of the work and fully acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should the Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by the City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof) . 1.6 Care of Work. The Contractor shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The performance of services by Contractor shall not relieve Contractor from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or detective work at no further cost to the City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Contractor. 1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Contractor shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit "A") when directed in writing to do so by the Contract Officer, provided that Contractor shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation. Any addition in compensation not exceeding five percent (5%) of the Contract Sum may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increase must be approved by the City Council. 1.8 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern. 2.0 COMPENSATION 2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Contractor shall be compensated in accordance with the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference, but not exceeding -the maximum contract amount as follows: Fiscal Year 2001 /02 $ , Fiscal Year 2002/03 $ , Fiscal Year 2003/04 $ , Fiscal Year 2004/05 $ , and Fiscal Year 2005/06 $ , except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon the Contractor's rates as specified in Exhibit "C", but not exceeding the Contract Sum, 2 157 or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C"). Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, premiums for bonds and insurance, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C"). 2.2 Method of Payment. Any month in which Contractor wishes to receive payment, Contractor shall submit to the City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of such month, in the form approved by the City's Finance Director, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, (2) specify each staff member who has provided services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff member, and (3) indicate the total expenditures to date. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Contractor specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City will pay Contractor for all expenses stated thereon which are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement no later than the last working day of the month. 3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "Y and incorporated herein by this reference. Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D") for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other than City, and unusually severe weather, if the Contractor shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his judgment such delay is justified, and the Contracting Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. 3 153 �3 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 7.8 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit II D 11 ) . 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representative of Contractor. The following principals of Contractor are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: a. b. c. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into his Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The foregoing principals may not be changed by Contractor and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the service required hereunder without the express written approval of City. 4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the Finance Director or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager of City. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Contractor shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. 4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Contractor, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Contractor shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. I V,..014 4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Contractor, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth. Contractor shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. 4.5 City Cooperation. The City shall provide Contractor with any plans, publications, reports, statistics, records or other data or Information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to the City. The City shall additionally provide Contractor staff assistance and shall take prompt and appropriate action when it will assist in ensuring and timely performance by Contractor hereunder. 5.0 INSURANCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND BONDS. 5.1 Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement, public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Contractor's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contractor's performance hereunder and neither the City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by the City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. The amount of insurance required hereunder shall be determined by the Contract Sum in accordance with the following table: Coverage (personal injury/ Contract Sum property damage) Less than $50,000 $100,000 per individual; $300,000 per occurrence $50,000 - $300,000 $250,000 per individual; $500,000 per occurrence Over $300,000 $500,000 per individual; $1,000,000 per occurrence 5 160 U15 The Contractor shall also carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising out of the use of any automobile by the Contractor, its officers, any directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement. The term "automobile" includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of Contractor's performance hereunder and neither the City nor its insurers shall be required to contribute to such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming the City and its officers and employees as additional insured shall be delivered to and approved by the City prior to commencement of the services hereunder. Contractor shall also carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance with State Workers' Compensation laws. The Contractor shall procure professional errors and omissions liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. All insurance required by this Section shall be kept in effect during the term of this Agreement and shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days' written notice of proposed cancellation to City. The procuring of such insurance or the delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor's obligation to indemnify the City, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents. 5.2 Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by the City) and for errors and omissions committed by Contractor, its officers, anyone directly or indirectly employed by Contractor, any subcontractor, and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Contractor's performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City's own active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct, or that of its officers or employees. 6 16 U1 5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Contractor fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. b. Order the Contractor to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payment(s) which become due to Contractor hereunder until Contractor demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof. C. Terminate this Agreement. Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedies for Contractor's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Contractor may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Contractor's or its subcontractors' performance of work under this Agreement. 6.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS. 6.1 Reports. Contractor shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. 6.2 Records. Contractor shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Contractor, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon the termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Contractor shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Contractor may retain copies 7 16 017 of such documents for its own use. Contractor shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied herein. Contractor shall cause all subcontractors to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Contractor fails to secure such assignment, Contractor shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby. See Exception Exhibit "E" . 6.4 Release of Documents. The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials prepared by Contractor in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Contractor shall not disclose to any other private entity or person any information regarding the activities of the City, except as required by law or as authorized by the City. 7.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT. 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Contractor covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. 7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefor. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, the City may take such immediate action as the City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.8. 7.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to Contractor sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Contractor in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 163 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non -defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Contractor requiring City's consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Contractor. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section 7.9 for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Contractor shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "C") or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. 7.8 Termination For Default Of Contractor. If termination is due to the failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Contractor shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated in Section 7.3. 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the 16 9 �i� other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party. 8.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NON-DISCRIMINATION. 8.1 Non -liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Contractor, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Contractor or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which e is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Contractor warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Contractor covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, disability or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, age or ancestry. 9.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section 9.1. 1o 10 To City: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager To Contractor: 9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understandings, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement. 9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties. 9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 9.5 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below. Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Dated: Name: Title: CITY OF LA QUINTA, a California municipal corporation By: By: City Manager "CITY" "CONTRACTOR" EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 . Contractor will perform an audit examination of all fund types and account groups of the City of La Quinta for five fiscal years commencing with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 and ending June 30, 2006. Contractor's examination will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards. Contractor will render its opinion on the general purpose financial statements and supplemental data of the City. Contractor will prepare the GPFS and supplemental data and provide 70 copies of the report no later than November 20th of each year. 2. Beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, Contractor will perform a "single audit" of the City of La Quinta in accordance with Public Law 98-502, "The Single Audit Act of 1984". Additionally, Contractor will conduct its single audit in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. Contractor's single audit will cover all federal grants received by the City of La Quinta either as a primary or secondary recipient and provide 12 copies no later than November 20th of each year. Contractor will render auditors' reports on (1) the supplemental schedule of federal expenditures, (2) internal control structure matters in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, (3) upon internal controls (accounting and administrative) required by the Single Audit Act, (4) compliance with laws and regulations in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, (5) compliance with laws and regulations related to non -major Federal Financial Assistance Programs, (6) on compliance with General Requirements and (7) compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Programs. 3. Contractor will prepare a separate management letter, if required, to report material weaknesses in internal controls for distribution to the City Council. 4. Contractor will perform a financial and compliance audit of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency initially for the year ended June 30, 2002 and ending June 30, 2006. Contractor will provide 50 copies of each of the reports by November 20th of each year. Contractor's compliance audit of the Redevelopment Agency will conform to requirements of "Guidelines for Compliance Audits of California Redevelopment Agencies" issued by the State Controller's office. 5. Contractor will prepare a separate letter to report constructive comments relating to internal control structure and compliance. Contractor will discuss those comments with the Finance Director and issue a separate letter to the 1 6 13 City Manager and Finance Director. These constructive comments relating to internal controls do not constitute material weaknesses in internal controls as discussed in Exhibit A Item 3 as determined by the Contractor. 6. desires to keep its City clients abreast of new developments affecting local government finance. Contractor would plan to advise City staff at least annually (perhaps a formal updating session would be in conjunction with review of management letter comments with City staff). 7. Finally, contractor perceives the scope of their work as being advisors to the City of La Quinta. Throughout the year, City personnel will have access to the Engagement Partner, to seek advice in the application of generally accepted accounting principles, the establishment and segregation of funds, advice regarding debt issuance, financial statement preparation and content and other matters relating to the City, including matters of taxation and policy relating to City fringe benefits. Contractor agrees to provide up to 40 hours annually of technical support of their management without charge to the City. meets the independence requirements of the Government Auditing Standards 1988 revision published by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Contractor's firm has never had a record of substandard audit work. 14 U ; WXmI1:11M:B SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS [Not Applicable] 15 0#1&ONO j EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION The following is a summary of the estimated hours and a breakdown of the maximum fee (including all out of pocket expenses) for the engagement: Maximum Not to Exceed Fee Estimated 2001 /02 2002/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 hours Audit of all funds and account groups of the City (including) single audit, work processing of GPFS and supplementary data) Financial and compliance audit of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Financial audit of the La Quinta Financing Authority Technical consultation Not to Exceed Maximum Classification Hours % Time Partner - Technical Review Partner - Field Supervisor — Staff Auditors 16 The above not to exceed fees contemplate conditions satisfactory for completion of the examinations, including the City providing the auditors with trial balances with substantially all closing entries completed. Additionally the City agrees to furnish subsidiary detail of account balances and reconciliation of accounts to the general ledger. The City will also provide a reconciliation of fund balances to the prior audited financial statements. Contractor understands that the City will provide maximum cooperation. Contractor also contemplates that the City will type confirmation requests. Contractor's staff will locate supporting documentation upon guidance from City staff. If there are changes in the scope of the audit, i.e. additional federal grant programs, substantial additional debt issuances, refundings, added project areas, etc., Contractor would like to discuss these changes with the City Finance Director and the effect of these changes on professional audit hours and costs of the engagement. Hourly rates in effect for 2002 for additional services that the City may approve in writing are as follows by classification and level of experience. Classification Partner Supervisors Senior Accountant Staff Accountant Hourly Rate The foregoing rate include reimbursement for out of pocket expenses. 17 U EXHIBIT "D" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE All reports due under this Agreement to be delivered by November 20, in the audit year which is being conducted unless otherwise noticed. 18 U"w8 EXHIBIT "E" OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS (Exception to 6.3) Contract officer recognizes that audit working papers are property of the Contractor; however, Contractor agrees to maintain the working papers for three (3) years subsequent to the audit. Contractor also agrees to allow review of working papers at no expense to the City. 19 1 ' ,j or �.J OW EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT " B" EXHIBIT "C" EXHIBIT "D" 20 W- •c9 Ems- � GZ v 5 di ^y�•�� AGENDA CATEGORY: OF BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Contract Change Order No. 2 to Ray Lopez and Associates for Citywide Park Improvements, Project No. 2000-01 CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 2 in the amount of $94,584 to Ray Lopez and Associates to implement various design and construction modifications to Project No. 2000- 01, Citywide Park Improvements; and Appropriate $65,425 from Quimby funds to provide adequate funding for increases in the scope of work for Project No. 2000-01, Citywide Park Improvements. The following represents the current approved project funding and respective funding sources: FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT INFRASTRUCTURE $160,000 QU I M BY $ 20, 000 PARK DIF $60,000 RDA CIP #1 $160,000 TOTAL: $400,000 The following table illustrates the approved project budget and funding allocations to the respective expenditure categories: CATEGORY Professional BUDGET $16,768 Design $20,000 Technical $23,895 Construction $319,953 Contingency $0 Land Acquisition $1,000 Administration $18,384 TOTALS $400,000 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305e.wpd None. This project was bid specifying prevailing wage rates due to the use of RDA funding. In the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), $140,720 was allocated for development of a mini park in the Cove area and $40,000 for the development of a mini park in the Sagebrush/Saguaro/Bottlebrush area. These amounts were added to the funds available, $160,000 for the Eisenhower Park expansion project for a total of $340,720 for the three mini park projects. On May 1, 2001, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Ray Lopez Associates for design/build services for three mini parks. These parks included the Bottlebrush/Sagebrush/Saguaro park site, the property donated to the City by Mr. Meyran on Avenida Velasco, and the expansion of Eisenhower Park. During Fiscal Year 2001 /2002, the City Council allocated an additional $40,000 in the CIP for the mini park located in the Bottlebrush/Sagebrush/Saguaro area, and allocated an additional $19,280 for the Cove Mini -Park Improvement. Therefore, the total funding for this project is $400,000. Mr. Lopez of Ray Lopez Associates began designing the mini park prior to the adoption of the 2001 /2002 CIP. Based upon the funds available in Fiscal Year 2000/2001, Mr. Lopez limited the scope of work for the mini park area to the middle of the cul-de-sacs that parallel the park site. The City owns the lots to the north and south of the cul-de-sacs in the area identified for the park site. The proposed CCO No. 2 scope is summarized on a per park basis as follows: Washington/Desert Club Manor Park Original Contract Scope of work Increase park square footage (+ 15,307 sf) Relocate play area to southern addition Add sidewalk access entire length of park Add three trash enclosures, one bench Deductions/reductions from original scope Proposed Bollard Lighting (7) fixtures $11,667 $89,261 $100,928 $1,600 $24,241 $25,841 $5,300 $15,085 $20,385 $3,000 $22,793 $25,793 $0 $2,324 $2,324 $0 $0 ($15,574) $18,935 ($15,574) $18,935 TOTAL CCO No. 2: $9,900 $67,804 TOTAL WASHINGTON DESIGN/BUILD COSTS: $77,704 $178,632 17 7 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305e.wpd DESCRIPTION Eisenhower Park Original Scope of Work $11,667 $ 65,926 CCO No. 1 $4,308 $38,774 Add extension to park (+ 10,000 sf) $3,800 $9,067 Upgrade play structure $0 $10,208 Add three benches $0 $1,576 Deductions/reductions from original scope ($2,056) ($12,7031 TOTAL CCO No. 2: $1,744 $8,148 TOTAL EISENHOWER DESIGN/BUILD COSTS: Ve/asco Park Original Scope of Work $6,667 $62,524 Add hardscape, mowstrip, and sidewalk $0 $7,648 Increase planting to improve screening $0 $594 Increase sand box play area (+ 300 sf) $0 $808 Play structure upgrade $0 $7,513 Deductions/reductions from original scope $0 ($9,575) TOTAL CCO No. 2: $0 $6,988 TOTAL VELASCO DESIGN/BUILD COSTS: TOTAL INCREASE CCO NO. 2: $77,593 $43,082 $12,867 $10, 208 $1,576 ($14,7591 $9,892 $87,485 $69,191 $7,648 $594 $808 $7,513 ($9,575) $6,988 $ 76,179 $ 94, 584 The current approved construction budget for the Citywide Park Improvements is $319,953. The following represents the current and proposed contract status: Original Design/Build Contract Approved CCO # 1 SUBTOTAL Proposed CCO #2 (including lighting at Washington Park) Proposed Revised Contract Total: 'Add previous allocated project support costs: Proposed Revised Project Total: Recommended funds to be appropriated from Quimby: $ 247, 712 $43,082 $290,794 $94,584 $385,378 $80,047 $465,425 $65,425 ' These amounts are indicated in the project budget as Professional, Design, Technical, Land Acquisition, and Administration. 1� TAPW DEPT\COU NO L\2002\020305e. wpd The proposed CCO #2 including the proposed lighting will require a total additional funding appropriation of $65,425, and an additional 8 - 10 weeks for manufacturing and delivery of the lights. Adequate funding is available within the Quimby account to support the recommendation for additional appropriation of funds in the amount of $65,425. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $94,584 to Ray Lopez and Associates to implement various design and construction modifications to Project No. 2000-01, Citywide Park Improvements and appropriate $65,425 from Quimby funds to provide adequate funding for increases in the scope of work for Project No. 2000- 01, Citywide Park Improvements; or 2. Do not approve Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $94,584 to Ray Lopez and Associates to implement various design and construction modifications to Project No. 2000-01, Citywide Park Improvements and do not appropriate $65,425 from Quimby funds to provide adequate funding for increases in the scope of work for Project No. 2000-01, Citywide Park Improvements; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. R,,es ectfull submitted, Voy' F. Steph f4on, P.E. Interim Public YVorks Director/City Engineer Approved for submission by: f�&-PL4- p� Thomas P. Genove e, City Manager Attachments: 1 . Contract Change Order #2 I T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305e.wpd / T V Iw,W�4�i w OF r� Sheet 1 of 5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT: Project No. 2000-01 PARK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONSULTANT: RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES P. O. Box 12885 Palm Desert, CA 92255 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 ****************************************************************************************** Pursuant to the terms of the original Contract Agreement, you are hereby directed to make the herein described changes or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications for this Contract. Unless otherwise stated all work shall conform to the terms, general conditions, and special provisions of the original Contract. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: The consultant/contractor shall provide the detailed services and materials installed at the designated park location as detailed on attached sheets 2 through 5. Previous Contract Amount Through Change Order No. 1 $ 290 795 Add this Contract Amendment 2 $ 94,584 Revised Contract Total $ 385,379 By reason of this contract change order the time of completion is adjusted as follows: - 70 - days added to contract time. The revised contract completion date shall be: 5/14/02 Submitted By: Date: Approved By: Date:_ We, the undersigned Consultant, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, perform all labor, except as may be noted above, and perform all services necessary to complete the above specified work, and hereby accept as full payment the amount shown above. Accepted By: Title: Consultant: RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES Date: SACommunity ServicesWini Park Design and Construction\RLA Change Order #2.wpd Prepared 2/27/02 21. Washington Park Changes and Cost Impacts R. Lopez Associates Land Concepts 1131102 revised 02/03/02, 02/15/02 Design Fee Additions: 1. Provide irrigation plans to cover North & South simple additions 2. Revise total design and place play area on South addition 3. Revise irrigation plan to accommodate item #2 4. Revise design to accommodate walkway the entire length of park 5. Revise plan to accommodate item #4 hours @ 100iea 16 29 24 16 14 cost 1,600.00 2,900.00 2,400.00 1,600.00 1,400.00 Negotiated Charge 1,600.00 2,900.00 2,400.00 1,600.00 1,400.00 -irrigation cost 1 9,900.00 9,900.00 Ada � �tp lem ntation Costs 1 A In8iorubbing of North & South park extensions 2 Ip,' t 6f Concrete 10ow Strip 3 3 square feet of additional concrete (charge for 224sq.ft.) 4 .A d 510 linear feet of concrete walkway 5. Add 14503 square feet of irrigation & controller upgrade (+590) 6. Increase square footage of play area fibar (+400 sq.ft.) 'no charge' 7. Play Structure Changes & Additions "see matrix" 6. Add 15307 sq.ft. of Hydroseeded turf 9.256 sq.ft.Sand box play area 0. Add 3 Trash Cans and 1 bench 11. Picnic Table vender change material cost difference 'no charge' 12. Wall demo and repair to allow for walkway 13. Grading solution #1 proposed November 2001 14. 4 additional curb cuts 15. Ramp into fibar play area 116. Revision / Rebid (10 Times) no charge' Cost Savings & Additional Allocations Use existing electric meter (relocate only) Use existing water meter and add mainline Adjust sizes and quantities of plant material Eliminate 4000 square feet of sod Drop 90% of the contingency Community information signs total cost w/ mark-up 450.00 5,982.00 2,504.82 16, 800.00 22,260.00 1,298.00 7,513.00 1,531.00 690.00 2,324.00 80.94 1,520.00 900.00 1,882.00 1,353.00 1,650.00 Negotiated Charge 450.00 5,982.00 1,238.00 16, 800.00 22,260.00 0.00 7,513.00 1,531.00 690.00 2,324.00 0.00 1,520.00 900.00' 1,882.00 1,353.00 0.00 cost 68,738.76` 64,443.00 259.00 1,379.00 5,842.00 3,294.00 2,000.00 2,800.001 Negotiated Charge 259.00 1,379.00 5,842.00 3,294.00 2,000.00 2,800.00 Note: City to allocate funds due to addition of North & South extensions credit 15,574.001 15, 574.00 Additional Funds Required for Washington Park $ 653,064.76 58,769.00 negotiated out $ 4,295.76 Note: See separate lighting proposal(s) not included above Note: See Original Contract Matrix for unit costs (unchanged) Note: See 02/20/02 Matrix for new quantities and park totals h Q 3/5 Velasco Park Changes and Cost Impacts R. Lopez Associates Land Concepts 1131102 revised 02/03/02, 02115102 Design Fee Additions: 1. Incorporate Concrete Walkway and additional Mow strip into plan 2. 3. 4. 5. Additional Implementation Costs 1. Add 39 feet of Concrete Mow Strip 2. Add 150 linear feet of Concrete Walkways 3. Add 72 sq. ft. concrete bench areas 'not applicable' 4. Increase planting to improve screening 5. Play Structure Changes & Additions "see matrix" 6. Picnic tables, benches & trash material adjustments for vender change 7. Add 300 sq.ft. sand box play area 8. 2 Additional curb cuts 9. Ramp into fibar play area 10. Revision / Rebid (5 times) 'no charge' hours @ 100%a 2 cost cost 200.00 Q.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Negotiated Charge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.001 0.00 total cost w/ I Negotiated mark-up Charge 413.00 4,941.00 398.12 594.00 7,513.00 105.88 808.00 941.00 1,353.00 825.001 413.00 4,941.00 0.00 594.00 7,513.00 0.00 808.00 941.00 1,353.00 0.00 cost I 17,892.001 16,563.001 Negotiated Cost Savings & Additional Allocations Charge Adjust drip irrigation prices down to mitigate costs 2,027.00 2,027.00 Eliminate 2 picnic tables 2,748.00 2,748.00 Community information signs 2,800.00 2,800.00 Drop 90% of the contingency 2,000.00 2,000.00 credit 1 9,575.001 9,575.00 Additional Funds Required for Velasco Park 6,988.00 negotiated out $ 1, 529. 0. Note: No Lighting is included to date Note: See Original Contract Matrix for unit costs (unchanged) Note: See 02/20/02 Matrix for new quantities and park totals 2/21 /02 Jhr Eisenhower Park Changes and Cost Impacts R. Lopez Associates Land Concepts 1131102 revised 02103102, 02115102 hours @ Negotiated Design Fee Additions: g00%a cost Charge 1. Add Extension Area to Scope of Work 31 3,100.00 3,100.00 2. Add Wall design for extension area 7 700.00 700.00 3. Revise Design & Irrigation to lower landscape costs 17 1,700.00 0.00 4. 5. cost 1 5, 500.00 3,800.00 Additional Implementation Costs 1. Add 116 linear feet of Concrete Mow strip 2. 276 sq.ft. of Additional concrete bench and table areas 'not applicable' 3. 1340 sq.ft. of Additional play area (fibar) 4. Play Structure Changes & Additions "see matrix" 5. 500 sq.ft. sand box play area addition 6. Picnic tables material cost difference 7. Benches "city was to supply 3 benches, now contractor to supply" 8. Ramp into fibar play area 9. Revision / Rebid (7 times) 'no charge' Cost Savings & Additional Allocations Adjust drip irrigation prices down to mitigate costs Adjust sizes and quantities of plant material to mitigate costs 945 sq.ft. less sod. (neighbor pushed turf edge) Community information signs Drop 90% of the contingency cost credit total cost w/ Negotiated mark-up Charge 1,228.00 1,526.12 5,139.00 10,208.00 1,347.00 80.94 1,576.00 1,353.00 1,155.00 1,228.00 0.00 5,139.00 10,208.00 1,347.00 0.00 1,576.00 1,353.00 0.00 23,613.061 20.851.00 Negotiated Charge 2,056.00 2,056.00 6,491.00 6,491.00 1,412.00 1,412.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 2,000.QO 2,000.00 14,759.001 14,759.00 Additional Funds Required for Eisenhower Park $14,354.q6 9,892.00 negotiated out $ 4,462.66 Note: No Lighting is included to date Note: See Original Contract Matrix for unit costs (unchanged) Note: See 02/20/02 Matrix for new quantities and park totals 18 2/21 /02 515 LAND CONCEPTS inc. 75-243 Santa Fe Trail Palm Desert, California 92211 760-341-6061 Kevin J. Grochau Gabriel L. Lua _Bollard Liehtiny, Installation Proposal February 11, 2001 ATTN: Mr. John Freeland City of La Quinta ..Re: La Quinta Parks: Washington Park We propose to provide labor, Electrical Subcontractor and materials as necessary to perform the following work: Provide 7 Bollard Fixtures as specified by City: CB 12R38 Cutoff -dome 100HPS 120VM Add circuit to existing electric meter Install 780 linear feet of sch80 conduit and associated electrical wire Install 7 foundations and conduit sweeps for fixtures Provide 7 High Pressure Sodium Lamps Install Photo -cell for new circuit Include all associated sales tax and shipping. Total installed cost 7 fixtures..................................................................................... $18,935.00 Notes: Tile insert option available at $167.00 per fixture Selected fixtures require 8-10 weeks lead time for delivery Selected fixtures represent +60% of total project cost Working on fixture option for comparison. Respectfully submitted Kevin J. Grochau Land Concepts CLCA V CA Landscape Architect No. 3157 1 �' CA Landscape Contractor No. 710483 Pe � COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2001 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Development Plans for the La Quinta Museum Expansion Project Located at the Southeast Corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: f7- CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving the development plans for the La Quinta Museum Expansion Project located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None for this action. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: At the November 6, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed two concepts for the La Quinta Museum expansion project. The City Council concurred on Design B, which is the two story facility with some modifications. The Consultant, Paul Johnson of Ferris Johnson and Associates, revised Design B to reflect some of the City Council's comments. These revisions include: The restroom on the second floor was moved to the front of the west side of the building with a door allowing access from the balcony; The height of the solid wall on the north side of the courtyard had been raised from 36 inches to 48 inches; and In the dumpster area, the air conditioning unit and dumpster location have been reversed. 1�� At the December 18, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the revised Design B and suggested several modifications (Attachment 1), such as: Placement of the stained glass windows from the Desert Club; Appropriateness of the landscape materials; Additional space added to the kitchen area; and Reconfiguration of the bar area on the patio. These items have been addressed in the final design. Attachment 2 provides the revised floor plan and elevations for Design B. The landscape plan for Design B is provided as Attachment 3. On January 31, 2002, the Historical Preservation Commission adopted Minute Motion 2002-002, recommending approval of the development plans to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4). Their action confirms that the proposed project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. On February 13, 2002, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee adopted Minute Motion 2002-002, recommending approval of the development plans to the Planning Commission (Attachment 5). They determined the addition and rehabilitation of the existing museum's architecture and landscape design was attractive as submitted. On February 26, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the museum development plans and adopted Minute Motion 2002-002 approving the development plans for Capital Improvement Project 2000-010. The museum project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). Specifically, under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, (e)(2), the project is exempt because the facility will be less than 10,000 square feet, it is in an area that has all the necessary public services and facilities, and it is not in an environmentally sensitive area. In addition, the rehabilitation of the museum structure is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15331. The Community Development Department has prepared and filed a Notice of Exemption. This document was required to be filed with the County Clerk's Office on or before January 31, 2002 as a condition of further consideration for the Proposition 12 grant funding request. Once the development plans of the Museum are approved by the City Council, it is estimated that the construction documents will be completed within 90 days. Currently, the construction funding amount of $752,500 is allocated for Fiscal Year 2002-03. It is estimated the bid package for the Museum construction could be advertised in June, with award of bid during the first meeting of August. Also during this time, it is anticipated that the City will receive notification regarding the award of C'1►;2 S:\Community Services\CCReports\CC.189.La Quinta Museum Design.wpd grant funding. When the award of bid takes place, additional funding will be necessary to construct the facility. Staff will proceed with the analysis for possible discussion of additional funding in regards to the anticipated deficit in the Museum construction budget (i.e. the preliminary estimate for the museum construction is $1,456,000.). Additional appropriations for the Museum construction will be available to the City Council for review during the Capital Improvement Program discussion. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving the development plans for the La Quinta Museum Expansion Project located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving the development plans for the La Quinta Museum Expansion Project located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respeq�fully sybmitted, ie Horvitz, %6mynunity Services Director Approved for submission by: Foe f 0� Thomas P. Genov se, City Manager Attachments: 1. Minutes from the December 18, 2001 City Council Meeting 2. Revised Design B Floor Plan and Elevations 3. Landscape Plan for Design B 4. Excepts from January 31, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 5. Excepts from Draft February 13, 2002 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes 187 ` L• L -a S:\Community Services\CCReports\CC.189.La Quinta Museum Design.wpd RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE LA QUINTA MUSEUM EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA AND AVENIDA NAVARRO CASE NO.: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2000-010 LA QUINTA MUSEUM EXPANSION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has determined this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resource Code Section 15301 Class 1 (E) (2) and Section 15331, Class 31, and therefore no environmental review is needed for Capital Improvement Project 2000-010, located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro, more particularly described as follows: APN: 773-101-001, 002 and 003 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 31 st day of January, 2002 hold a public meeting to consider Certificate of Appropriateness 2002-008 for Capital Improvement Project 2000-010, located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Navarro; and WHEREAS, said Certificate of Appropriateness has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed Capital Improvement Project 2000-010 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section 15301 Class 1 (E)(2) and Section 15331, Class 31; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying said Capital Improvement Project: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan Infrastructure and Public Facilities Element because it provides reasonable accessibility for residents within its service area. 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code in that it complies with development standards for setbacks and landscaping. 1 SACommunity Services\CCReports\CIPMuseum.wpd City Council Resolution 2001- Capital Improvement Project 2000-010 March 5, 2002 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that a Certificate of Appropriateness has been prepared. 4. The architectural design of the building addition is appropriate for the site and compatible with the surrounding environment. 5. The site design provides an interior circulation with pedestrian, pedestrian amenities and is compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Capital Improvement Project 2000- 010. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 5th day of March, 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 1�3 S:\Community Services\CCReports\CIPMuseum.wpd City Council Resolution 2001- Capital Improvement Project 2000-010 March 5, 2002 APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ljo S:\Community Services\CCReports\CIPMuseum.wpd 13 ATTACHMENT 1 City Council Minutes 4 December 18, 2001 7. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE LA QUINTA CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 97-09. 8. APPROVAL OF A MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTENANCE TO PROVIDE STREET SWEEPING SERVICES. 9. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JAS PACIFIC INC., FOR BUILDING INSPECTION AND PLAN REVIEW SERVICES. 10. APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TO CONSTRUCT BRIDGE RAIL ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE JEFFERSON STREET BRIDGE OVER THE ALL AMERICAN CANAL. 11. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLINING TO ESTABLISH A VETERANS PREFERENCE SYSTEM PENDING THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS WITH THE LA QUINTA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (RESOLUTION NO. 2001-161) 12. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A BELL. (RESOLUTION NO. 2001-162) MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and with Item Nos. 11 and 12 being approved by RESOLUTION NOS. 2001-161 and 2001-162 respectively. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2001-175. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE LA QUINTA HISTORICAL MUSEUM DESIGN. Community Services Director Horvitz presented the staff report. Paul Johnson, of Ferris Johnson Design, reviewed the revised Design B concept. He advised artifacts from the Desert Club of La Quinta, such as stained glass windows, would be incorporated into the museum design. Council Member Sniff commented on the importance of placing the stained glass windows where they will refract the light. City Council Minutes 5 December 18, 2001 it Mr. Johnson reviewed the landscape design and noted which trees would be retained on site. Council Member Sniff voiced concern about using eucalyptus trees and Council Member Henderson questioned the use of smoke trees. Mr. Johnson stated alternative trees would be considered. Council Member Sniff stated he felt it's imperative for the patio area to be covered with some type of patterned paving. Mr. Johnson reported stamped concrete is proposed and would be less expensive than pavers. He also confirmed decomposed granite in the patio area has been eliminated from the design. Council Member Sniff commented on the value of attractive the in accent areas and modest indirect lighting. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Johnson advised the Health Department does not allow the use of pocket doors in kitchen areas. He confirmed placement of a window in the double -swinging door would address any safety concerns. Mayor Pena suggested expanding the kitchen wall four feet to the west to provide more counter space in the kitchen.. Council concurred. In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Johnson advised due to required distances between outside exits and the desire not to encroach into the courtyard area, the second -floor staircase exit will remain at the alley. However, the steel door will be for emergency exit only and can be opened only from the inside. Council Member Adolph suggested the wall between the exhibit area and future expansion area on the second floor be a partition wall. Mr. Johnson confirmed it is a non -bearing wall. Council Member Sniff wished to have the flexibility of covering the entire balcony area. Council Member Adolph suggested beefing up the fascia to attach hardware for a retractable awning. Council Member Henderson stated she felt tables and umbrellas would be sufficient. Council Member Sniff disagreed. 19 U IL; 91 City Council Minutes 6 December 18, 2001 Mayor Pena suggested the balcony sink area be reconfigured to allow rear access for beverage service. Mr. Johnson explained the construction documents will be developed once a design concept is approved. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to approve Historical Museum Design B, a two-story building with a courtyard featuring a tile deck, decorative fountain, and 48-inch courtyard wall with the second story completed as a shell with possible grant monies and supplemental Capital Improvement Funds as required and with any further design modifications to come back to Council for approval. Council Member Henderson commented on the number of phased projects the City has going and the need to be cautious in spending. She also asked about the status of the grant application. Ms. Horvitz stated it's her understanding that the City can expect to receive a portion of the requested grant amount. Mr. Johnson advised several alternate bid items can be provided in the document designs to provide flexibility. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 2001-176. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE ON AGING FOR THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM. Community Services Director Horvitz presented the staff report. Eileen Packer, of -the Riverside County Office on Aging, gave a brief review of the County's Senior Nutrition Program and confirmed eligible residents would qualify for free meals, with or without funding from the City. Council Member Henderson stated she felt the Community Services Grant Program might be more appropriate to help offset some of the costs of the Senior Nutrition Program. She also suggested getting feedback from the community on the absence of the Meals on Wheels Program. Council concurred and no action was taken. z w x U Q H F— Q 19 ------------------------------------ I �nn I VJc M oU) m �X 1 X E: a 1 WEyry�; T I T 7 � I 1 1 I O - I ` I W • Q � ^1 L � CAN C LL W I 3 ' o a� m � I 1 I c � 1 J I I I � I I O I I I I I I I I i I i I I I r------------- - 1 1 I I I i I I I I I I I I1 I_ - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I L- - - - - - - - - - - - - J � I I -----------------� 19- v 0 ,-) 19 19 �1.j w0 ,0l _0-,6 Q NO 6 19J w co 9 !l -t * , ki -I- n M H Z W a 2 U FQ- Q ATTACHMENT 4 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 31, 2002 V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Results of Phase II Testing of two Prehistoric Sites within the Grove/Mountain View Country Club for Specific Plan 90-016; a r RtIL st r approval of testing results. Applicant: Toll Broth e - Historic Co Itant: LSA 1. Princ I Planner Stan Sawa presen the information contained in thest report, a copy of ich is on file in the Community Development partmen 2. Commissioners ncUr e with staff's recommendations. 3. There being no further discussion, ' was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mitchell/Wright to adop mute Motion. 2002-001 recommending approval of the Results of Pha I Testing of two Prehistoric Sites within the Grove/Mountain View Cou y Club for Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1. Unanimously approved. Determination of •t "t t t• -tary of t - • .td. rds B. for the Treatment f Historic- s- two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the histQric City Qf La Quinta—HialQrk 0 , ; Applicant: City of La Quinta - Historic Architect: Ferris, Johnson and Associates. 1 . Planning Manager Christine di lorio introduced Mr. Paul Johnson of the firm Ferris, Johnson and Associates, the architects for the project. She then presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked questions about when the balcony would be built and the future expansion. Staff replied the entire structure would be built at once, with a use designation applied to the area noted as "future expansion". Staff also stated the stained glass windows salvaged from the Desert Club would be integrated into the tower element at the Museum. The City was unable to integrate the Desert Club doors into the project, as they were in an unuseable condition. 3. Commissioner Wright asked if Commissioner Irwin had been able PACAROLYNNHPC 1-31-02.wpd -2- U 2 Q Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 31, 2002 to review the plans, and if she had made any comments. Staff replied Commissioner Irwin had been involved when the City Council was reviewing the documents during a Study Session. 4. Engineering Consultant Nick Nickerson stated Commissioner Irwin made favorable comments during the Study Session. 5. Commissioner Wright asked if any comments had been made concerning the existing tower and the new roof lines. Staff replied nothing would be attached to the tower. The present Museum building would be free-standing and the roof lines shown on the plans were not attached to the Museum. 6. Commissioner Wright asked if the plans are two dimensional. Mr. Paul Johnson replied the Museum was drawn in front of the new building behind it, with nothing attached to the Museum. Planning Manager di lorio stated there was a courtyard separating the two. 7. Commissioner Sharp asked about the proximity of the veterinarian office. Staff replied there is a five foot setback to the property line and a six foot wall separating the veterinary office from the Museum. 8. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the color palette had been determined as he would not like to requested that no light green be used. Staff replied the colors had not been determined yet. 9. Commissioner Wright asked about the parking. Staff replied there was one area closed off to vehicular traffic which would be used for parking as well as parking in front of the Museum and to the north abutting the Frances Hack Park. 10. Commissioner Wright stated he had no problems with the plans if Commissioner Irwin was in favor of them. His only concern was that the integrity of the original structure not be compromised. 11. Commissioner Sharp commented the tower finial need to be repaired as it was composed of a ball and spike and the spike was bent. 12. Chairman Puente asked what the primary consideration was on exterior decoration. Staff replied there was a comment included about the tile which appeared to be a later addition. P:\CAROLYN\diPC1-31-02.wpd -3- Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 31, 2002 13. Commissioner Sharp commented that they may have been the tiles he helped put up about eight years ago. 14. Staff asked if the tiles were existing or were they duplicated. Commissioner Sharp replied they took one of the existing tiles and found duplicates at a tile store. 15. Engineering Consultant Nick Nickerson stated the tiles around the door were just glued on. Normally tiles are an integral part of the stucco surrounding it, but these tiles had no grout, they were just glued on. The tiles around the door had gaps where they were just touching the corners and were clearly an add on to the building. 16. Planning Manager di lorio stated staff included this information to make the Commission aware of the tiles. 17. Commissioner Mitchell asked a question about initiating Section 106 Consultation in regards to this proposal. Staff replied this was not needed as there was no Federal money being used in this project. 18. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 2002-002 recommending approval of the determination of consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for the two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum; located in the Village at La Quinta. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Planning Manager di lorio announced her resignation from the City of La Quinta and her new position as the Director of Planning and Building for the City of Carmel -by -the -Sea. The Commissioners congratulated her and Commissioner Wright suggested the Commission do something special, such as a plaque thanking her for all the help she has given them. Staff stated they would look into it. U P:\CAR0LYN\HPC1-31-02.wpd -4- ZAFT ATTACHMENT 5 krchitectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes ebruary 13, 2002 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is keeping with the Center. With regard to the color, color is getting to be the trend - 7' and thet'e is a lot of responsibility with color. Staff peeds to ask for the actual color chips and where the color.lar-esJbreak. He has no objections to thfs.. project. 4. There being no further disctatstQn, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member-Cunningham%T-horns to adopt Minute Motion 2002-006 ommending approval of Site�-Development Permit 200 9, subject to the conditions as recommended. nanimously approved. C. Capital Improvement 2001-10; a request of the City for review of architectural plans for a two story detached addition and rehabilitation of the Historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum located at the southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Mendoza (77-885 Avenida Montezuma). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he had no objection. He asked if they would be using random mudded and . Mr. Paul Johnson, architect for the project, stated he proposing to use red boosting throughout the roof. They do not want the roof to be too rough but do want texture and character. The stucco color will be similar to what is existing. 3. Committee Member Thoms asked about the existing door and if there was any connection to the paved area. Staff stated it would stay as it is historical. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked about the planters. Mr. Johnson stated the planters would be added to the top of the pavement. They would be detached and protected to retain it for historical purposes. Additional planters would be added as well. All existing trees will be retained as much as possible. Committee Member Thoms asked about the four palms and stated they should be used as an accept; four are too much and they should be replaced and a desert scheme used. If shade is wanted use the Palo Verde. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\2-13-02.wpd 5 DRAFT Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 13, 2002 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-007 recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-10, as recommended. Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2001-728; a request of Stamko Development Company for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail shopping center, plant nursery, garden center, auto repair, specialty shop, nd an auto service station, in conjunction with Retail Building B . 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff asked the material and color of the canopy for the proposed gas station. Mr. Bill Parrish, architect for the project, stated it would be made out of metal and would be blue and painted to match. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant wanted to give a presentation. Mr. Gary Shepner, Perkowit, gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the fonts shown on the elevations would be used for the signage. Mr. Shepner stated it was their hope. Committee Member Cunningham stated it bring an identify to each of the retail centers. The design is modern and contemporary and not over the top which is good. This will work with the other new buildings in the area. He likes the metal work in the front as it is proportionate. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked where the accent red color would- be used. Mr. Shepner stated it would be used where the blue is shown on the elevation. Committee Member Thoms asked if each building has its own accent color. Mr. Shepner stated yes. Committee Member Thoms asked if the landscape plans would come later. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated yes, after the approval process. Committee Member Thoms stated he would like to see that there is some kind of landscape statement made, other than a sea of trees, at the entrance to tie it together. Ms. Chris Clarke, the applicant, stated this is an addition to the auto center and the same theme will flow over to this project for the entire 90 acres. Statements have been made and awards won for the Highway 11 landscape theme. 5. Committee Member Cunningham stated the auto center was done 2 , G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\2-13-02.wpd COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Discussion of the Village Faire Events in the Village of La Quinta RECOMMENDATION: As deemed appropriate by the City Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None at this time. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: At the June 26, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council approved an amount not to exceed $61,800 to be allocated to Kiner/Goodsell Advertising to provide Village Events services for the City of La Quinta. As outlined in Attachment 1, six Village Faire Events were to be held. The events were scheduled for the first Friday of each month from November to April. These events are held on Calle Estado, from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. It was anticipated that the revenue from booth rental space by vendors and miscellaneous fees would generate $3,850 per event for a total of $23,100 for the six events. The fees collected were deducted from the balance due to Kiner/Goodsell from the City, to offset the cost of the program. At the February 6, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council requested the Village Faire program be placed on a future agenda as a Study Session item, as provided in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 provides a report generated by Kiner/Goodsell regarding the Village Faire events. The following issues have been addressed in the report: 203 SACommunity Services\CCReports\CC. 1 88.Village Faire Events Study Session.wpd Vendor Recruitment Revenue Advertising Public Relations Event Recommendations Definition of event purpose Advertising Budget The budget for the Village Faire events for Fiscal Year 2001-02 is $61,800. By dividing the total amount by six events, it is estimated that each event would cost $10,300 to produce. It was estimated that each event would generate $3,850 in revenue to offset the cost of the program. In October 2001, the City Council allocated an additional $4,750 for advertising the first Village Faire event in November. Therefore, the total amount allocated for the November event was $15,050. Expense and revenue reports for the months of November, December, January and February from Kiner/Goodsell are provided as Attachment 4. The following table represents an overview of the expenses and revenues for the Village Faire events. Month Budget Expenses Revenue Actual Cost November $15,050 $14,197.22 $2,033 $12,387.22 December $10,300 $11,941,37 $2,876 $9,065.37 January $10,300 $1 1,994.55 $2,228 $9,766.55 February $10,300 $10,850.91 $2,374 $8,476.91 As outlined in Attachment 5, Kiner/Goodsell has provided the actual staff hours required to produce each event. As presented in Attachment 5, Kiner/Goodsell staff spent several additional hours planning and implementing each event than originally estimated. As provided on pages 10 and 11 of this report, Kiner/Goodsell has suggested possible modifications for future events: A program definition and clear goal Increase in the advertising budget Increasing overall program budget 209 S:\Community Services\CCReports\CC. 1 88.Village Faire Events Study Session.wpd Resp ctfully ubmitted, Dodie Horyffz Communit ices Director Approved for submission by: i homas P. Genovese City Manager Attachments: 1. Scope of Services for Village Faire Events 2. Minutes of the February 5, 2002 City Council Meeting 3. Village Faire Summary Provided by Kiner/Goodsell 4. Village Faire Expenses and Revenue 5. Village Faire Planning Hours S:\Community Services\CCReports\CC. I 88.Village Faire Events Study Session.wpd 9 I ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES 2001-2002 Event Objective: To create festive community event that both encourages civic pride and treats event patrons to a variety of food, shopping and musical entertainment pleasures. Target Audience: Residents of La Quinta Residents of the Coachella Valley Prospective La Quinta business owners Event Parameters: Plan six Village events per year, beginning in November and ending in April. This will include an event in January (which has not happened in previous years). Events to take place the first Friday of each month, from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Consideration to be given to changing the event name. "Mainstreet Marketplace" may not be all -encompassing of the festive nature of this event, and a more striking name may both draw more attention to the event as well as indicate that the event is changing to a bigger, better forum. All advertising to indicate under the new event name that it is "formerly Mainstreet Marketplace" to maintain the loyalty of Mainstreet Marketplace's current following. Strategy: Village events will be a more festive community event, taking advantage of a new Village atmosphere and keeping the "draw" (i.e., the vendors) for La Quinta and Valley residents. In addition to local vendors, College of the Desert (COD) Street Fair vendors will be approached with the opportunity to extend their presence in the Coachella Valley one weekend each month by adding the Friday night Village events in La Quinta to their booth exhibitions. This will be a bcnefit to the vendors, as they will have another opportunity for exposure while they are in town for the COD Street Fair. In turn, additional vendors will provide a strong base for Village events to become more like a festival — offering a variety of activities, creating an enjoyable atmosphere and drawing larger attendance. Events Costs: KineY/Goodsell shall be responsible for payment of all Definite Costs, Other Costs (Misc.), as specified in the Estimated Budget for 2001-2001, as well as any unanticipated costs that may arise in relation to the planning/production of any given Village Event. ATTACHMENT 2 City Council Minutes 10 February 5, 2002 Council Member Adolph agreed and supported a neutral color tile roof that is compatible with the adjacent church building. Council concurred on Design Option #2 with a compatible the roof. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS CVAG Human and Community Resources Committee — Council Member Adolph reported the County may decide to close the Indio Animal Shelter once the Valleywide Animal Shelter is built because of the estimated cost of $750,000 to upgrade the Indio facility. He has asked the County to get back to the Committee before making a final decision. CVAG Energy & Environmental Resources Committee — Mayor Pro Tern Sniff reported the Waste Management Subcommittee has forwarded two waste transfer station proposals by Burrtec and Waste Management to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors for consideration. All other reports were noted and filed. DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1-B. STATUS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATION ON THE COACHELLA VALLEY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Council concurred with the staff recommendation in the staff report. �-� 1-C. MID -YEAR REPORT ON CITY OF LA QUINTA MARKETING PROGRAM. In response to Council Member Henderson, Andrea Carter, of Kiner/Goodsell stated they will prepare a report in February on the Village Faire and will be making recommendations regarding future events. Council Member Henderson commented on the low attendance and inquired about the status of light poles and banners in other areas of the City to advertise the Village Faire. City Manager Genovese confirmed staff is working on that issue. She suggested placing the large sign in another location and City Council Minutes 11 February 5, 2002 stated she felt it may be time to consider sending out another RFP for marketing services. Council Member Adolph commented on the decrease in vendors and agreed the event needs rejuvenation. Ms. Carter advised the West Coast Flyer Band will be back at the March and/or April events. Mayor Pro Tem Sniff suggested this item be placed on a future agenda as a study session item. 3-13. REPORT ON CITY PINS. After a brief discussion regarding a new City pin design proposed by Mayor Pro Tem Sniff to commemorate the City's 20th Anniversary, Council concurred to order 2,000 to 2,500 commemorative City pins. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS' ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING LA QUINTA CIVIC MUSIC CONCERTS. Council Member Adolph expressed a desire to have a full Council when this item is discussed and asked that it be continued to a future agenda. Council recessed to Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council reconvened and recessed to and until 7:00 p.m. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT Gayle Cady, 82-814 Avenue 54, requested signage for the equestrian trails along Madison Street and expressed appreciation for the City's cooperation in the 2nd Annual Madison Save -the -Trails Ride. She also commented about recent improvements at Lake Cahuilla. ,,,1J r i P7 � 1 , FROM : KINER/GOODSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:49AM P2 ATTACHMENT 3 ner t oodseII Village Faire Summary By: Diner/Goodsell Advertising February 25, 2002 Overview: The 2001-2002 Village Faire, sponsored by the City of La Quinta and formerlY known as Mainstreet Marketplace, has been a big hit with those who have attended. The event has accomplished its goal of being a "big block party", where families and neighbors come out and enjoy live entertairmient, food and beverage samplings, and free activities for the kids. In other ways, however, the event has not been as suceessfW as the City and the event planners would have liked. In the following report, KinerlGoodsell will detail the areas the event could be improved, offer theories as to why the event is falling short in a few areas, and present several recommendations for hover this event could become even stronger, if it is to continue. History: Kiner/Goodsell was approached by the City of La Quinta to put together a proposal for planning this event. After researching how the event was put together by the La Quinta Chamber and investigating how other street fairs operate, we put together a proposal that was ultimately accepted by the City Council. Kiner/Goodsell hired an event planner by the name of Helene Blake who accepted was so primary responsibility for the event. Because planning an event of this magnitude great, Andrea Carter also spent a great deal of time coordinating the event. Vendor Recruitment: Andrea and Helene started by putting together a mailing to all La Quinta business license holders, as well as all vendors who had participated in Mainstreet Marketplace in the we past. When we did not receive as great of a response to the mailing as W dors �� they'd started snaking calls to all past vendors who hadn't sued up. Some vendors y had such a bad experience with the event in the past that they wouldn't return. Some lained about the wind in the La Quinta cove. Yet other's said they didn't like comPit working at night street fairs because the lighting wasn't sufficient and we got too convince ince during the winter months. Even though we received these c f� or theEvent. others to give the event another shot, and so they sign p 21- FROM : KINER/GOODSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:49RM P3 In addition to the direct wail contact and follow-up to the mailings, Helene and Andrea made a Saturday visit to the College of the Desert (COD) Street Fair to hand out information about the La Quinta Village Faire. About half way through our distribution process, we were asked to stop handing out our information — as they did not allow any hand-outs to be distributed to their vendors. We did get a few more vendors hay d d out at the solicitations we were able to make that day (we marked the applications we the COD Street Fair so we'd know who responded from that form of vendor recruitment). We also used other strategies to recruit vendors. We met with the director of the COD Street Fair, which resulted in his agreeing to put flyers out at his information table. letWe talked directly to COD vendors — some of whom were very interested in working} Village Faire, and others commented it was just too much in one weekend when they had to be at the COD Street Fair to setup at 4:30 a.m. We made follow-up calls to all vendors who had participated in the first or second Village Faire, to encourage them to come back for the next Village Fairs. Some of the comments we received from vendors are as follows: - Very well organized Electricity not dependable on Calle Estado - Not enough Iighting on the street - Need more advertising Expenses: r rom the time we put together our proposal to the time we started planning the event, many budget items that we relied upon based on our initial proposal research changed. the La Quints Resort For example, for Mainstxeet Marketplace events in over ° It vas after our proposed donated the staging, the tables and chairs, �wetable amed the Resort was not in a position to budget had been approved by the City that donate those items again this year, and we would have to purchase them. $ei g that we did not have those items budgeted for — a $500-$800 expenditure -- we had t somehow because the squeeze them into our current budget. Another itern we hadn't ookerpamonths-The heaters Chamber hadn't used them in the past —were heaters for attendees, tt ndees, but again, another turned out to be a much -appreciated necessity for e $300 we had to squeeze into our budget. We found that good bands and entertainment were inore expensive than our initial research indicated. But most imp�� y rp liner g this event required much more time than we had allotted in Dorevent planning lin ly, as we with our staff more than doubling the planning hours (which w wanted to see this event be a real success). FROM : K I NER/GOODSELL FAX NO. : 7607 731750 Feb. 25 2002 11: 50AM P4 For further information on the event's expenses, please see the attached addendums for complete reports on the breakdown of hours per event, as well as the budget expenses for each event. Revenue: Because the vendor participation fee was increased this year, this allowed far a more sizable income for the event than in previous years. Please review the attached expense and revenue breakdown reports for information on revenue taken in for each event. Advertising: For the first event, the City decided to use half of the funds budgeted for grand opening :advertising for The Village to promote the first Village Faire. Therefore, we had another $4,750 in addition to the $3,000 budgeted for advertising each'Village Faire event. When comparing the first Village Faire event attendance with subsequent events, it's clear that the additional advertising made a major difference in the amount of people it brought out for the event. Public Relations News releases were completed and distributed by Kiner/Goodsell for 'Viitage Faire events, and we did receive some coverage. For the first event, we received a merition on the front dar of page of the local section of the Desert Sun. The second event was listed in theca events of the Desert Sun. The third event — which featured a Mexican Fiesta theme — received excellent media coverage (which was reflected in the attendance). The January event received feature stories on KMIR's morning show, and KESQ s evening news Programs. Event Recommendations: if this event is to continue, Kiner Goodsell makes the following recommendations in order for it to thrive in the future: Defiue the event: The most important item that needs to be determined is the goal(s) is of the event. it seems this event is trying to accomplish too mIf, indeed, the even uch. meant to bring out friends, neighbors and families for a "block parry" type theatmosphereevent — to enjoy food, music, free activities for the kids, etc. — it is succeeding at this goal awe can If the event is to continue with its "block party" atmosphere,be expanded upon. would recommend expanding on that and recruiting more food vendors verses vendors selling goods. For example, make the event more of Taste of La Quints' approach in 21C �10 FROM : KINER.-GOODSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:51AM P5 terms of vendors. Have the street filled with a variety of food and activity vendors (such as the rock climbing wall, the lady who sells twisted balloons for kids, etc.). if its purpose is to be a true "street fair" with several vendors selling a variety of goods, several things need to change. With the "block party" atmosphere the event has right now, the same people are coming out every month to grab a bite, have a beer, dance, and enjoy the live entertainment. They may stroll the vendor booths — but if they saw the same vendors in November and bought items they were interested at that time — they aren't buying at subsequent events. This leads to less revenue for the vendors, who therefore, aren't as eager to return. To achieve the true "street fair" event, a whole new set of efforts would need to be put into vendor recruitment, and more advertising to tourists to bring in new people for each event (i.e., new "shoppers" for the vendors). Increase advertising: We recommend increasing the advertising for each event to at least $5,000 per event, preferably $6,000. It's clear that the additional advertising for the first event made a major impact in event attendance. Consider increasing overall budget: Good events require a great deal of time and resources. (terns we did not budget for, but managed to "work in" this year included heaters for the colder, winter events; the tables, chairs and staging; stronger entertainment/bands (which resulted in higher entertainment expenses), etc. In addition, Kiner/Goodsell put in numerous additional planning hours which were necessary for the proper execution of these events, and would therefore need to increase our planning retainer if we were to continue with the prof ect. Summary: The people who are attending Village Faire love the event. They're having a wonderful time and are so thrilled to have it back. We've also received several comments about the different themes we've featured each month, and how it is such fun to look forward to what the new theme will be each tine. perhaps if the event were advertised more a nd continued to expand on its success as a "block party" — featuring primarily food and activity vendors, as well as strong entertainment — it would become even morescessful. if the event can Choose a clearer direction in the future and not try to accomplish much, it can continue to grow and prosper, FROM : KINER/GDODSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:51RN P6 ATTACHMENT 4 November Village Fairs Expenses A` PIGNAGE. ... .......... ......... .. .. . ........... ......... ............. ......... TOTAL BUIDOET ............. ... 600 .......... ......... ......... .......... ................. ....... * . .......... ............... ......... ................... ........ ....... ....... .. .......... . . . ITEM ITEM...._............ ....... ........ . ...... ...... ............ .......... . ...... Wooden Sign...,.....:..,, 150 ....--- ........ ...... (W�..4iVide.d ... by..6.. eventIS).-J! .. ..................... ............. . .2...0..-6Banners ......... .......... ........................ . 352.-5- ...... ............. .. I ........... .................... ........... ............ ............. ............... ...... ...... ................. ........ ......... ... TOTAL REMAINING .... ............ .. ........ ........ .......... ................ ................... .. ...... ......... ........... ........... . ... ............... ............. ......... ........ ............ ................ ,...ENTERTAINMENT .... .............. ............... .............. . ........... ............. ...... ... ENTERTAINMENT .................. ...... ............ .. ............. TOTALWDqET 15p.q ......... ------------ ............... .... ................ ........... ........... .............. ....... . ................... .................. . ................ ........... . ............ Band ....... .... ..................... .................... 600•.......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ............ ---- ------ .......... Ap .p I 50 ....... ...... ......... ....... ....... . I ....... . .... . ............ colpfiRg.. Shoots 200 ............. ....... ...... ................... ........ ...... Cash Prize for School:.......... . ................... .. .................... ............ 200 ...... . .......... .. .......... ............... ........... ........ KPLM Talentjee-j . ............... ... so .............. ......... ............. . .................. ............ .............. ..................... ........ ................. ...... ............. .. .. ........ ............ TOTAL REMAINING .............. ............ 400 ...... ........... ......................... ............ .......... ................ .................. ........ . ..................... ........ . ........ . . ............ 7 ............... ............... ... I........ ...... ........ . ... ....... ... 12 .... ......... ............ ............ ................. mis. . . c .................... .............. ...... ToTAL BUDGET...... . Soo ................. ............ ............. ............ .......... ........ ................. ...... .. .... .................... ... ........... ............. ................ Health Permit ................... 38 ........... events)... ............... divided bV 3 .......... .............. ........... . ............ ... Clean-Up-,Sweepers $o.......... .......... .................... . . ................. . .......... . ....... LightJqyyer 210 ............. ......... ................ .. ........... . ........... ... ........... . ........ Dinner for Volunteers: ......... ;--- 20 --- ..... ................. . .... ............ .. ....... . ........ ........... .. ............. postage......... . 1.07.1 ...... ..... .............. .......... I ......... ....... ....... Ix3r ....... %AyVendor . . Materials ...............1 ....... . 02..1.2.... ..... I. 1.-2.76.....di.v ........ .... ............. ............. 22M9 ................. ....... ........ ...... .......... .......... ....... ............. . .......... ............ .................. TOTAL REMAINING . .......... . ................. 242.78 .............. ............ ............ ........... . ............ ....... ...... ........ 3, ........... ............. ....... ........... I .. .......... .......... ..... ......... .. ...... ... ......... ........... .......... ADVERTISING ......... ....... - . ......... ...... ...... TOTALBUDGET ............ p ............ ..... ........ 7.95.0.11 .... ......... L ...... ................ ............ .. .... ......... ...... ... ........... ............ ........... ....... .. ....... .. ................. ......... .... .. .......... . ................. ............ ........ ............ ... Radio Production .......... . .......... . ............. .......... .... .............. ............. ................. .............. ...... 7. Print A d Production ............. Production ............ . ......... ............... ......... ........ Print Media ............ ............ 1814.63 ...... .......... . ......... ......... ........ IN Z* ...........io Media Radio ..3.0.0.0 ............ ........... ...... ........... F.IYA ....(s .. ............ ............ ............... .............. ............................ .......... . .......... ............. .......... ........... ............. ........ ............. ............. 41,1 --TOTAL. 400.1.6 ... .... I .......... Ii-4VILLAGE FAIRE SUMMARY., ADDFIVDUM 1 e) FROM : KINER/GOODSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. -25 2002 11:52RM P7 November Village Faire Expenses A .R D ,,,....:. .... ................ 5::6, LAW ENFORCEMENT ........ ........... _..... �1. TOTALBUDGET.... .....400 ........................... `',Z ................. ....... Officers44.7,.44....... ...... .............................. ....... TOTAL ACTUAL .... .............-47.44....... ............. ............... ,,..6 _........:. .......... . ..........: .............. ...... .. ........... ;WASTE MAAIAGEMENT .... ... ......... ............. ....... i ................ . :.................. ............... ....... 3 S.." TOTAL. BUDGET ...... 0 3 4.. ................. .............................................. .............................................---..... ....---... ........... ...... . ...: : Waste _Management 30 a .......... ...... ........ ............... { .......... ............ ................. ............ ...................... .................. TOTAL REMAINING .......... fl..... .. ........... .............. ............. ...... . .............. ............. ................... ...........,. ........... ........... .............. 6,.:4: {.......... ................... ................. K/G COORDINATION j .......Event, Retainer..... .350 0 .............. .............. ............... ...........I ................ ... ......---- <....... . TOTAL REMAINING.. ....... ................ .. .............. .......... .. .............. ...... wr ................. ........................... ........ ................... .. ................. ......... ....... ............... ................................_... ...... ........... ........................ ... .......... r�"4- ....... ...........,.. ..............., ....._........ ................. ..........�... ..................... ................ .......... .. ........,....... ........ .. •.W .w> :' .............. ............... .. .... .. ................ ............ .......... I................... ............. �.......... ..........., .. .......... .. „ ............... ............. ......................... ......... ..................... _ VILLAGE FAIRE sUMMARY: ADDENDUM 1 J JL ., � J FROM : KINER/GOODSELL FAX NO, : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:53AM P9 December Village Falre Expenses SIGNAGE ............. •.............-.i.......................... TOTAL BUDGET ..... .......... ..------- .. ..................................... 7 9 0 ................. ....... ............. ....., ... ., .. ...................................,................ s...................... ....... ........ . ...... ............,............... .-....-.-.... '4 ........................ ITEM ........................... :.................. ....... ................. ............................ ........................... .....................................•:....................... .... ..... .. ;.3. Wooden Sign 150 ........................�900•.divided...by...6..events). .. Banners.._.......... ................. ..... 206................... ........ �1236 divided..by..6 , events} .................. . Event Signs 424 ....:.......:.................... . "�'�� hang.si�.n,... .....Ron.to• .....................4.9..,,..,.......... .. , ,,.:...,.................................................... TOTAL REMAINING_ - 3 9 -'C< .................. .... ,... ENTERTAINMENT... -.. ........,..................................................................,.....................,.� .....TOTAL BUDGET :....................... 1600 ................_. Band 1..200............-.... :. :. Cookies/Dewy/wipes ................................ ...2................................... -................. I ........... I............. 1' W:>e Coloring Sheets..... t.53, i. g.. ....... ... ... ............................ ..................... .............. :.a Meals 16 .................. Y.......-......................... Supplies (tape} .......... ....... 3.86 ..... ............................ ...... .............. 1........ ...... ................................ .... ...�. .,...... ................. ,...7 TOTAL REMAINING...{....., 34.95 ................ d:� •a• ............... . ..... ........................ ........I............................. .. . ;8.. MISC, .......... .. �.r TOTAL 8Ul7GET.... ..... .. 1.000 ........... ............ ,.. ti......... .........-...-..... ......................................,..... z • _ ...................................... Health Permit ..........._................ 3 S 113 divided b 3 events y > ........................... Clean-up- Sweepers ;.. $ ................. ;.. ....... .......................... s ice�} ;: �!.ght Tower........ ...............0............ No char a for bad service �..... `�....,......... .......----..-).... onation...for Volunteers .. 1. a.0....... ........................... Posta9e ..... ................... 5 .................... . c Vendor Materials ........... � 02,12 ............ (612.75 divided by._6..eyents .......- ...._.......... .................... ileage ....... ... •-•........... ............4.2..... ......... �,. .,- Tables/chairs/stage; 300...., ............... ,oP.s... Barricades :.$.� .............. TOTAL REMAINING .................. ........... .... 261.6$... _..... .. ....... ............................... ...........,...... igw............ .................. ............ ...........:i ... _........ . .. ....... "4'w. Al.)VERTISING: ........_......... . .........-......... . ................ .... ................ TOTAL BUDGET .................... ............ ........ . 3904 ........ ....... ...................... $. 0. ....Radio..Production...... Print Ad Production ..:............... S0.®........... ':.. a: Media 85.0... ...... .Print Radio Media 2000 ,............. .................... . ............... w .............. ..--......._... ................. ............. ..................... ......................, ... .......... TOTAL REMAINING _ 0 _. VILLAGE FAIRS SUMMARY. ADDENDUM 2 FROM : KINER/GOODSELL FAX NO. 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:53AM P9 December Village Faire Expenses . . ................... ........................ ........... ................... ......... .................... ...... .............. ............ ........................ ....... ...... .................................. . . ....... 55�LAW ............................... .. . ENFORCEMENT ................. ENFORCEMENT ......... ........ ......... TOTALBUDGET .................................. . 450 ............... ....... ................. ...... . ..... ........... ......... .............. . .............. .............. ............... ....... ................ ............... . — Officers ................. ..... 405 . ......... ...... - --- ...... .......................... TOTAL..ACTUA.L...... 45 ............ ....... .. . ......... -- ...... .......... .......... .......... ........ ......... .............................. . ...... ....... . . ........... ....... ........ ....... ................. ................. . .................. .......... ............. ...... ...... WASTE MANAGEMENT ...... . ........ ...................... .... ........ ........ TOTAL BUDGET.......;.. ................ 150 ..................... ......... ............... 6. ................................... I.. . ....... .. .......... ...... ............... ...................................... ....... Waste Management. 104 ............... ............ ....... ............... ................ ........................... ............. .............. ....... - .... ............. .......................... .......... .......... ............ TOTAL REMAINING .......... ........ ----- . ... ..... 46 ....................... ........ ....... ............................ ............... .......... .......... .. ...... ........... ......... ................. .................... .......... .......... ........................ ........ ........ . . ............ ......... . KJG COORDINATION I . .......................... . COORDINATION..;......... Event Retainer ...... ........... ..... 3500 ... ..................... ........... .. . ..... ................... . .................................... ........ - ..... I ...... . ......... ............... .............. ...... .......... .......... ................ TOTAL REMAINING 0 ........ I ............ 11 ...... ....... . ................. ........... ... . ....... ................. ....... .. ...... .......... ................... ................... . .. .............................. ......................... .......... ................ ......... .......... ............... ....... ................. .......... ...... .. .................... ................. ....... .............................. . ............... . .......... .............................. ........... ........ .......... .................. ...... .............. pir. . ............... ....................... ......... ......... ...— 1". ............ .... . .......... . . ................. .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........... .................. .... ......... ....... .......... .......... ................. TOTAL EXPENSES .............. 0 ...... ....... ....... .......... ....... ............. MINUS INCOME 3256 .......... ------------------------- ........ ...... . .............. TOTAL EVENT COST - 3 2 5 6 till I At--E-- CA10C CIIAAAAAPY- Ar)1)FNDUM 2 FROM : PHONE NO. : 6047348055 FEB. 26 2002 10:45AM P2 January Village Faire Expenses ................................. SIGNAGE ................ :............................................... ........ ........... ..... ..... .. . TOTAL BUDGET ..................................I........................................................... 700 ........................................ .........lTEM.................................................................................................................................... .......... Wooden Sin ........... ............i........................ 150 .........-........... ,,.. (900 dividedevents 7... ..... .., —..... ... �..,............................... Banners 206 (1236 ,divided ,by, 6 events)... i EventSims.,...,... 32................. .......I Ronto hang si0n „ ., .,..., ... ,?... ...... ....... „ ...,, .,,,....,..,...... ,...,,.,._......... . ...................................................................................... TOTAL REMAINING ................................... ................... �w............................................. ........................ .................. ............. ....... ......... ............ ..... ... .................. ........ ........ ............ ............................ ,...... ....................... .........,.,, ............. ...... ..I........................ .......,..... ,,.._..........., ,. ENTERTAINMENT .................................... ,..,................ .s........ .............. ...... ....... TOTAL BUDGET 1600 ...._ .r................................................................ 3 .........I....... Bid .......... ......... y...................i.000................... ................................................................................................. Tortilla making...... ............... ...................... .......:..........................,.......................... 0 ................................. Coloring Sheets 100 PolkloncoaOence........................5� . ,. .................... ...................... ...................... ............. ....... ,s, .,...... Bottled water/meals � 25 Chipg.. 8►..Salsa........'................ 20.96 ................. . Sound System.,,.., , 150 �. ............................... TOTAL REMAINING .., ; ............ ............................. I—,.................................................... ,.................................................... ............................................... � MISC. TOTAL BUDGET 1300 .. ... .... .............................. ......................... j ................................. Health Permit ........... ... .........................r............................................... ................ 38 f �i 3 divided by. 3..eventsj.. Clean-up Sweepers. ....,..... ., .., ,0. „ „ .,.,,,. .............................................. ............................... ;.. LightTower .............. ....... .....?.1..d.... ................ oration..fo....V...... eri.......................d.�,............... ............. ........... ..... ........... ,........................ ..f........,....................... ................................j..8, .................. ;. ........... .. „ .......... VendorMaterials .....,....... 102.1 „6.events; 5 b. .. . ............................ „ ..,........Mileage .............. ............ . . 34 ........ ...................................................... ......................I.......... Tables/chairs/stage ......................................... ... y. 300 , .......... .... .5.. Tops & Barricades. 5 �'.................. Hsaters 300 TOTAL REMAINING j .................................... —,................ 130.6e .. ............ .......,.. ...... ......... ..................... ....<.................................. J .... ..... ..................... ................................................................................................ ADVERTISING ... ...... ... .............................................. ....... .....................,.....,... ....TQTA►L BUDGE"........................,.3�.40.........._...... ............ ,................... .. .............................. ....Radio.. Production .... ................... 3 0 0.............. .... ................................... ......,.............,......................... .............. � Print Ad Prod to 4.00 (Chamber newsletter 8� DS) i .......... ...... .. Print Media 825 •l.�`I�.C�C �I�.1 sa T� gVl�Jl i\/1 ./\OY- A►T1P"1Chi r1� •f%^ 1 FROM : PHONE NO. : 6047348055 FEB. 26 2002 10:46AM P3 January image ralire Cxpenses Hispanic PR.. 251.25............................................. TOTAL REMAINING ....................................1.......... 576.25...,...,.,..,... ....,.......,.....,..............,.................................. ............ ,....,................ ....,................ i LAW ENFORCEMENT {...................... .......... . TOTAL BUDGET a04..... ....... ................... ...................................... ...._ ..., ............................... Officers ........................................... ' ... ..........................................................................................._.............. ;.......... .... ...... . . TOTAL ACTUAL 400 ....._...........................:......... _....................... _................:............................................................. ;WASTE MANAGEMENT TOTAL BUDGET 300 .............................. Waste Manngemat :....... ................ ............ ............. ..:...... .... ................. .............. ......................... :.................... ........ ....... .......................300 TOTAL REMAINING ................................ 0 .. .......................... ...... ....................... ... ;................................ .................. ........... ; K/G COORDINATION Event Retainer ................................................. 3500 _ . .................... I................ ......... TOTAL REMAINING ............. .............................. ................................................................................................. ........................ ............................................... ......... ....... ........ ,..................... ... ...., ...... ........,..........�........ .............. �........ .{. ........... .,..................... 0 ......... ............................................ .............. ... ..... ........................................... ; ........... ................... ......... ........................... {...... .. ..,,............... ......................... ......,....,....................... VILLAGE FAlRE SUMMARY: AJ)DENDUM 3 Y FROM : PHCNE r10. : 6047348055 FEE. 2E 2002 10:47PM P4 February Village Faire Expenses SIGNAGE TOTAL BUDGET 600................... ITEM................. . . Wooden Sign ...........:... .I ............... 1.�0 ................. . ....(g0a..divided...bu..6 events)..-......................,........... Bar►ners 2 Q 8 (1236 divided bX 8 events) Event Signs . ...... .... :........................ Ron to hang sign 26 ....TOTAL REMAINING . ............2.1.g .....,........... ................. ....................... ...................................... ....... .... .................................... ................................. i............ ..,......... ,. ENTERTAINMENT TOTAL BUDGET ................................ ............. ................. 1500 0 .... ........ ... ............... ;......... ......... Band laoa Beads, masks, etc. 332,07 Coloring Activit .........'.........X... 47.5 ................................... ` ................................................................... ...... .................. ............ Meals y................................................ 30 .............................................................. ......., ....................... �...................... ...... .............. ...............,..,..,....�.......... TOTAL REMAINING ..........................�.,....,.,.,. ..... ,........... 90.43 ,,, .,,.,.,..,..,,.,...,..,.,...,, ..............,,.,..,............................................. i,...... .... ......, ..... ...,.............,..............................................,.................................. .................................................-:--.......................................................................................I......... ................. - ........ .. ,.,,, l....,.....................,..............................,........................,...........................................................---................. ..................... TOTAL BUDGET 8 0 0 Health Permit .......................................................... 97 291 dfvided b 3 events ......�........,........,... ,,.... Y...,.,.................a....;.................................. Clean-u Sweepers ' P...............p...._... 0 ............. ......... ,......... - i.9!?t..T4!^i 0. .,.... .... . ......................... ...... ......... ........ . ............................ onation Tor Volunteer; ..............................................,................................................ 100 ................. .. ............................ ................Postage.................................... ,................ {........................ .........................,. .. Vendor Materials . .......... .,102..112..... (612. 75. divided„by 6...eventsY.. ....................... Mirage.............. .....3a:.22,,.............. ' .............,.., ......,. T ble J h�4),r€Ca,40..,.,...,......,................................... ........,................. ......... {............. ............, ., . Tops 8� Barricades so Heaters 250 TOTAL REMAINING -448.34 ADVERTISING TOTAL BUDGET .... 7 35 5 ....................................................... ............,.................. Radio„Production ...... �.............. ....... 3Q0..........,,.,.,..., ,. Print Ad Production 5.b0......... (DS and Gerr,� Print Media 812 VILLAGE FAIRS SUMMARY: ADDENDUM 4 2,-)4 Aw FROM : PHONE HO. : 6047348055 FEE. 26 2002 10:48PN P5 February Village Faire Expenses Radio Media ...........r.... 2000 `: .. ............ . ........ ..... .._............. 1 . ......._s.......... TOTAL REMAINING ..................... j - 3 7 .... •. !.............. ............. ,.... • ........ I .... .... .... ` LAW ENFVIBNT.;..................................._.... .,......................,..,.,...._� . ,.. ...:...................... 70TALBUDGET . • . 40.0 ................................... .................... .......Officers .............................. •............ , ...........•......... ............................... TOTAL ACTVaL 400 .................. ... ..-... ......... . .; .,...................,...........••....• ....... ................� . .......................i. .... �.. ., ........7............ .... ..... .. i.............,............ •... ... ;WASTE MANAGEMENT ., TOTALBUDGET.............. 30D.......................................................... . _ ............................ . 11Vasie.Manam®nt.. 3Q.a............. . •..;.........-...........-.................... ............. ........,..I...".... ..................... TOTAL, REMAINING .. „..........._...-.......................... ........ ................... . , ................ .................� 0 ... •............. .. i ............. .................................... . .............. . ...... .... K!G COORDINATION Event Retainer.. .., .............................. .... 3500 .. ........ .......... _.,..-............,_.........f. ............................... '� . •s- TOTAL REMAINING 0 ............................. TOTAL EXPENSES .................................... ............................ •............ ............................ ' ..... .MINUS INCOME ........................... . TOTAL WENT COST .<.........................0.. I ................;.......••.... ................................................................................ ........... ..................... .................... .. ............... ........................... .....�..............................•............-....................,...............................-.. ,.....•.,.••...............................•.. .......... ,.... ,........... VILLAGE FAIRE SUMMARY: ADDENDUM 4 02/26/2002 11:10 7607731750 KIMER GOODSELL PAGE 02 O � So0 011llc It 0 top w h a {L� M l wV1 « Q � O � p O o0 iQC3 v000 O po4 O O ui to N u� tt1 O O W •� u7 Ul O �''� 0 40M N ir! W40 vp 4040 .Z' C,ui CO2 0 r4R j p Oi0 t0Lo y M In CD w {�► N f3 (A !li i/1 N M M V!WM N !1! M W « ♦ a • ♦ s • « « p O c� o o C Q O ca o a O O o 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 1 0 6 ui o Lei to 1!! <Q w IA to t0 M t0 (p U7 V) w +t9 v cD M 1L7 cotD to iA M 4* 40 40 0 4# Ml 1R Ml N► M 40 In M1 • • a p oo v oa o0o a ooa o© ao L7 00 O O a O Co C)O o O 0 0 0 o v a C) O p N w; 1t! o tii o o In Sri o o Qi •W' u1 ui In Wi in ki Vto! w(a► N iCID/1 V�! 44co N0n !�Og ilR7 o /OA 40 49VW M p p a o g0 0 0 0 0 $ O p o a CD o ¢ ui j � to In co to 40 0 iD cecpp 9) !g y M0 ilk M /A W N Vl N M K Z ♦pp r • r • � + a r ♦ • a • • O � 0 0 O O d 0 C) O Q C; O O tiD� t0 O CO V N cmN Vol V! Vi N !1► M V! ov fA a I L I LL a � m �3 c :. to Q cc � rn � � w js Cc_ 0 0 0 R & x CM c MS_ FROM : KINER/GOGDSELL FAX NO. : 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:57AM P14 oCD ! ,p to �0 fA k e v OQ p o O O O O a o 41 O Q O O O 0 1O � I tali u07 c�D 11 r I � O O O O o o OC?d O O o 0 OOO t « O O 0 O o0 s x 0 O O Colo 0 0 O0 co M O 0 LciO in Ln® tO I* o CO co 4 H iOR 4 0 +9 (0 tR � w r'? N fA • t 1 K ♦ t O�OOd " Oj� p�o 4 x p O Y " O O O n O M p O � j O �� Ln p N c0 ti5 tb �D �0 M (f3 69 Opt w cD iA V3 � � d3 dui is ifi O i9 I � K O o o v o 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ C O C Q O O 0 . C O ,�� Oi O Q lL7 u j 1Ci U O a LO O O �l? �O i0 O O - c0 (0 O O rD CQ O O E!! to CD La , <D tf3 iR 4AL tls1 ER GD �y f9 iR► w 6+4 44 0 W o d9 � bF3 ` j cv � " LO 000a oo j oo Q O O c?ovo O O 00 {" L Q a 00 4 in topoop �.�oo�: U;o c^y�J U) o ui Gil C� w ::i L0 m (f} O l 6H fR iti H cpA 1w W I r O ti `+J K 0 K O � cc :H Z m r oo g o w=� c4 0 E CD jCr, 0 LL 1 (� L �c ►,. Qi z i y� v .i ,.�G G0(UJI a 0 Q Lu �" �► a' U a � W � N +��. � CLS � o d V C m$ @ 4) v. 6� Q = c� z>> m" J °��a39o`.acrciu�uiv��u�°tsr-$�— � JL FROM : KINER!GOODSE_L FAX NO. 7607731750 Feb. 25 2002 11:58PM P15 ATTACHMENT 5 Village Faire Event Planning Hours Kiner/Goodsell Advertising The following breakdown of hours includes time put in by Helene Blake and Andrea Carter, the event coordinators, as well as the Kiner/Goodsell's public relations staff (in order to write news releases and handle media follow-up) and Kiner/Goodsell's receptionist — who put in a number of hours coordinating mailings, making follow-up calls to vendors, and maintaining spreadsheet reports for each event: November: HOURS ALLOTTED UNDER RETAINER 38 December: HOURS ALLOTTED UNDER RETAINER 38 January: HOURS ALLOTTED UNDER RETAINER 38 February: HOURS ALLOTTED? UNDER RETAINER 38 VILLAE FA/RE SUMMARY: ADDENDUM 6 ACTUAL HOURS 89 ACTUAL HOURS 101.50 ACTUAL HOURS 81.25 ACTUAL HOURS 100 4Wti:3 REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: /� CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Cultural Arts Commission was called to order at 6:56 p.m. in the Study Session Room of the La Quinta Civic Center. Chairperson Shamis presided over the meeting. Commissioner Baxley led the Pledge of Allegiance. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Dan Baxley Commissioner Else Loudon (arrived 7:05) Commissioner Elaine Reynolds Commissioner Rosita Shamis (Chairperson) MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Denise Diamond (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director Vianka Orrantia, Secretary II. PUBLIC COMMENT III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of December 20, 2001 B. Financial Report for December 2001 C. Department reports for September, October and November 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Baxley/Reynolds to approve the Consent Calendar with corrections. V. PUBLIC HEARING - None VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. De Martino Art Piece Modification Update The Commission reviewed color samples for the gem given by Mr. De Martino. It was agreed upon by the Commission to form a subcommittee made up of Commission Shamis and Reynolds to review the two choices, Al and B2 with Mr. De Martino. 223 SACOMMUNITY SERVICES\CACOMM\CACMIN.01-10-02.DOC A. De Martino Art Piece Modification Update (cont'd): Commissioner Shamis will schedule a meeting with Mr. De Martino. Once the subcommittee selects a color, this will be forwarded to the City Council for approval. B. 20" Anniversary Celebration Musical Entertainment Plans Commissioner Loudon shared with the Commission the letter she received from Mr. Bugg, Principal of La Quinta High School, regarding confirmation of entertainment for the 201h Anniversary Celebration. Commissioner Loudon stated that Principal Bugg would waive the fee for the use of the high school football field for this event. Commissioner Loudon feels that the high school can come up with a time frame for the entertainment for the Commission's review and for any changes. Commissioner Loudon has been in contact with Mery Griffin's personal secretary and has requested that Mr. Griffin be the Master of Ceremonies for the event. Commissioner Loudon also spoke with Keely Smith to sing the National Anthem. Commission Loudon also spoke with the General Manager at Simon Motors and asked if they would consider donating a Cadillac as a raffle prize for a drawing during the 20th Celebration, all with City Council approval. Commissioner Baxley feels that the Commissioners from the Cultural Arts Commission should be mentioned at some point in the ceremony. Commissioner Shamis suggested that the Cultural Arts Commission be mentioned on the flyer. Commissioner Shamis stated that due to upcoming 20th Anniversary, the entertainment event will make the City of La Quinta eligible for matching funds from the California Arts Foundation and with the help of Community Services, staff will download the application for completion and submittal. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Reynolds stated that they are still waiting for an art piece from John Kennedy to be considered for the Temporary Art Program. Commissioner Baxley commented that the Council had approved the sculpture on the corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington at Point Happy and would like to know the status of this item. Mrs. Horvitz stated that the anticipated completion date is in May. Commissioner Baxely also asked the status of the Senior Center Mural. Mrs. Horvitz stated that the mural was approved and painting has begun. Commissioner Baxley commented on the sculptures on Calle Estado and suggested that the other Commissioners take the opportunity to view the artwork at dusk. tli^1 . 1 UU SACOMMUNITY SERVICES\CACOMM\CACMIN.01-10-02.DOC VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS (cont'd) Commissioner Baxley asked if there would be an art piece at the Jefferson and Avenue 52 roundabout. Mrs. Horvitz advised the Commission that it is currently only scheduled for landscaping. Commissioner Reynolds asked when the Civic Center Campus construction was going to begin. Mrs. Horvitz advised that construction is now beginning, there will be five art pieces: one piece that was commissioned by Mr. De Martino in 1996, a sun and moonbeam piece (a 14 foot jagged piece, a 6-foot round disc); a bronze relief map of the Coachella Valley; animal footprints in the sidewalk at various locations; acknowledgement plaques, the criteria for those who qualify will be decided by the City Council and the locations will be in various areas throughout the Civic Center Campus; and mosaic art pieces of Native Americans in the sidewalk with descriptive legends. Mrs. Horvitz advised the Commission that she would be meeting with the contractor to determine installation schedule. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioners Loudon/Reynolds to adjourn the Cultural Arts Commission meeting. Unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. NEXT MEETING INFORMATION February 14, 2002 7:00 PM La Quinta Civic Center Study Session Room Next agenda: • 201h Anniversary Celebration Musical Group Plan 23i SACOMMUNITY SERVICES\CACOMM\CACMIN.01-10-02.DOC REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEM: A40 INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD Meeting January 9, 2002 I CALL TO ORDER Regular meeting of the La Quinta Investment Advisory Board was called to order at the hour of 5:30 P.M. by Chairman Osborne followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Board Members Osborne, Moulin, Olander, Lewis and Chairman Mahfoud ABSENT: Board Members Felice OTHERS PRESENT: John Falconer, Finance Director and Vianka Orrantia, Secretary II PUBLIC COMMENT - None III CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes of Meeting on December 12, 2001 for the Investment Advisory Board. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Lewis/Olander to approve the Minutes of December 12, 2001. Motion carried unanimously 1 22 Investment Advisory Board Minutes V BUSINESS SESSION January 9, 2002 A. Transmittal of Treasury Report for November 2001 Mr. Falconer advised the Board that he recently rolled over $5 million in commercial paper. Board Member Osborne asked if there was a difference between commercial bonds and commercial paper, other than the time frame. Board Member Lewis replied that commercial paper is discounted. Chairman Mahfoud — inaudible Board Member Osborne asked would staff be able to extend maturity from, two years to five years, and if so, is this allowable by the State? Mr. Falconer — inaudible. Board Member Osborne stated if the Board stayed in the five -yield realm, and added commercial bonds, would the rating be safer? Board Member Lewis advised the Board that the majority of commercial bonds are triple "A" rated. Board Member Osborne advised the Board that with the current rates, the Board would possibly have to look at other options besides those in the current investment policy. Board Member Moulin — inaudible Mr. Falconer — inaudible Board Member Olander asked the status of the City Council's review on the current budget. Mr. Falconer replied that the Council is scheduled to review the budget the first meeting in February. Board Member Moulin advised the Board that on page 5, of the Treasurer's report, it appears that the Board is paying par for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Falconer advised the Board that staff is currently paying at a discounted rate. Board Member Moulin asked if the schedule should reflect the discounted rate that is being paid? Mr. Falconer stated that on page 5 of the Treasurer's report the discount rate is reflected rP � 33 Investment Advisory Board Minutes V BUSINESS SESSION January 9, 2002 A. Transmittal of Treasury Report for November 2001 (cont'd) under Amortized Premium/Discount. Board Member Lewis suggested a cosmetic change to the schedule. Board Member Lewis suggested changing the heading "Par" label vs. a principal heading and another minor cosmetic change from recap to investment change. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Mr. Falconer — inaudible. Board Member Lewis — inaudible. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Moulin/Lewis to review, receive and file the Treasurers Reports for November 2001. Motion carried unanimously. VI CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL A. Month End Cash Report and other selected Financial Data — December 2001 Board Member Osborne asked if there was plenty of commercial paper with the ratings the City needs? Mr. Falconer — inaudible. Board Member Osborne stated that looking at the budget vs. actual line items and other revenues there is a decrease of $1.5 million, and asked if that is due to the current economy. Mr. Falconer replied that he would have to look at the budget in more detail, but that he believes that the actual revenues will be closer to budget at mid -year. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Chairman Mahfoud asked why the Building and Safety Department had such a big hit in their Capital and Expenditures? Mr. Falconer replied that every year, in March and September, out of the Building and Safety Budget, payment for the City Hall is made. Noted and Filed B. Pooled Money Investment Board Reports — October 2001 3 234 Investment Advisory Board Minutes January 10, 2001 Mr. Falconer advised the Board that on page 13 of the Pooled Money Report it does reflect Fannie Mae discounted rates. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Additional discussion ensued regarding the extension of maturity from two years to five between Board Members. In response to Board Member Moulin, Mr. Falconer advised the Board that two different types of software had been investigated, to track maturities and were deemed to be too expensive. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Board Member Olander asked what percentages or amounts would be available for two to four year maturity? Mr. Falconer replied that staff would have run some type of performa and come with an amount in the City reserve if the City extended the maximum maturity length. Board Member Olander — inaudible. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Board Member Lewis stated that you do not want to chase rates. Board Member Moulin — inaudible. Mr. Falconer - inaudible. Noted and Filed VII BOARD MEMBER ITEMS - None VIII ADJOURNMENT MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Olander/Lewis to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. -Sub ' ted by, Vianka Orrantia Secretary 4 w3 a�''u"`�•c DEPARTMENT REPORT: ' O� �p • INCIZM, S4� c� OF TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager DATE: March 5, 2002 RE: Department Report — Response(s) to Public Comments The following is the response to public comments made at the February 19, 2002 City Council meeting: 1. Ms. Joyce Money, who owns a new home in the Miraflores development, mentioned that she's having a problem with "mold -encrusted tile" in her house. She stated that the developer refuses to do anything about it; she is allergic to the mold, and has a letter from her doctor stating that she can't live in the house. • Mayor Pena referred Ms. Money to the City's Redevelopment Consultant, Frank Spevacek. Mr. Spevacek has met with the developer and the contractor. The developer, DC & TC, LLC has been working with Ms. Money since January 2002, and has offered two options for resolving this problem. DC & TC, LLC is awaiting a response from Ms. Money. A letter from DC & TC, LLC to Ms. Money is included as Attachment 1. 233 DC & TC, LLC February 21, 2002h'�°k Mrs. Joyce Money ATTACHMENT 1 We are very disappointed that you are unhappy with your tile selection and installation. It is the objective of DC&TC to provide you a duality home at a great value that you can enjoy for many years to come. You first brought to our attention concern over the possibility of mold contaminating the ceramic tile installed in your home soon after the close of escrow on December 31, 2001. On January 28, 2002, a representative of the company met with you to discuss a resolution to this potential problem. You provided DC&TC a two -page report, dated January 14, 2002 (attached as Exhibit A), and prepared by Hometest of Waldorf, Maryland. You indicated the report was prepared from samples taken from the ceramic tile in your home by A+ Plus Home Inspection. Our representatives contacted both A+ Plus and Hometest for further clarification of the report. Through this process we discovered that there were three additional pages to the report, which you did not provide. These pages indicated the recommended remedial action. Upon receipt of these additional pages from the testing agency, DC&TC had further discussions with the inspector from A+ Plus, the testing agency, Hometest, the installing subcontractor and the Ceramic Tile Institute. All parties agreed that the remedial action of surface cleaning recommended by Hometest was the appropriate corrective step. Even though neither DC&TC nor the tile contractor were present when the samples were taken and even though the company had not employed an inspector to review the tile or test results, DC&TC was prepared in good faith to move forward with the recommended remedial action as recommended by Hometest. The DC&TC representative met with you (phoned you) on January 29, 2002 and explained the company was prepared to move forward with the recommended action after the the installation had been completed. As you know, due to some confusion, additional tile work was completed but was not grouted and required finishing. We were quite surprised to learn from you at that time that you "did not like" the Hometest report and stated that you would not allow the the to be grouted and were having another inspection completed. At this point the company could take no further action since you would not allow completion. 237 46-753 Adams, La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 771-3345 Fax: (760) 771-443 1 0:1 +1 3 On February 4, 2002, DC&TC received another report dated February 1, 2002, prepared by Hal Taback Company (attached as Exhibit B). This report, although relying only on the samples analyzed by Hometest, makes some assumptions that we have been advised are clearly inaccurate. The report concludes that: "The mold is present primarily on the paper backing of the floor tile." "The tile have been laid with the backing paper still attached as evidenced by the tiles installed, on one bedroom where grouting was not completed." "Mold was present on the the in the garage." Nowhere in the report is indicated that testing was completed nor were any of the tales removed to determine if paper backing was still attached to tile or whether mold was present on the paper allegedly attached. The tile contractor has advised DC&TC that it is not their procedure to install tiles with the paper attached and. they do not believe it to be the case in the TMOncy residence. Since the Hal Taback second report is based on the premise sited above, DC&TC believes the conclusions are erroneous and thus the remedial action recommended unwarranted. In order to resolve this matter, DC&TC again in good faith puts forward the following alternatives to resolve this matter. 1) The tile job is finished and the remedial action recommended by Hometest is completed at no cost to the homeowner. DC&TC will reimburse the homeowner for the cost of the Hometest. 2) Selected tiles be removed to determine if the paper backing remains. An additional inspection and samples taken if necessary and recommendation for remediation, if any, be prepared by an independent expert, Apex Safety & Health Consultants. Mr. Cleveland, the principal of Apex, has impressive credentials, including numerous publications, as set forth in Exhibit C. 'We would invite Mr. Taback to ue present at this inspection to confer with Mr. Cleveland to determine the appropriate solution. The timetable for resolving this issue is in your hands, as it has always been. DC&TC stands read• to move forward immediately on either of the alternatives 1 or 2above. Please contact the undersigned as soon as possible so this matter may be resolved and you have the full enjoyment of your new home. Sincerely, DC&TC, LLC oe de Coster c: Jerry Herman Frank Spevacek Slim Price Michael J Shovhn 23 . 9C DEPARTMENT REPORT: 3- A MARCH 14-17 CITY COUNCIL'S UPCOMING EVENTS LA QUINTA ARTS FESTIVAL MARCH 19 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 20 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING (General Plan Hearing) APRIL 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 5 VILLAGE FAIRE EVENT APRIL 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 25-27 201 ANNIVERSARY EVENTS (see attached) MAY 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 23) 3s2011HANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION HUPCOMING EVENTS APRIL 25 CHAMBER MIXER - CITY HALL (5:30 - 7:30 P.M.) APRIL 26 MULTI -GENERATIONAL TALENT SHOW - LA QUINTA SENIOR CENTER (7:00 P.M.) APRIL 27 COMMUNITY PARADE - FRITZ BURNS COMMUNITY PARK 00:00 A.M.) COMMUNITY PICNIC - FRITZ BURNS COMMUNITY PARK 01:00 A.M.) ARTS & CRAFTS SHOW - LA QUINTA SENIOR CENTER 0:00 - 4:00 P.M.) COVE OASIS TRAIL HIKE - COVE OASIS (5:30 P.M.) STAR -GAZING - COVE OASIS (7:30 P.M.) FISHING DERBY - LAKE CAHUILLA 00:00 P.M. - 10:00 A.M.) APRIL 28 GEM OF THE DESERT RUN - FRITZ BURNS COMMUNITY PARK (7:00 A.M.) ART UNDER THE UMBRELLAS - LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION 00:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M.) ENTERTAINMENT WITH FIREWORKS - LA QUINTA HIGH SCHOOL (5:30 P.M.) March 2002 Monthly Planner Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 9 9 d 4v:, :. k '-��`*+r tX � .{° �' .✓ R ,� ` a 1 N; �:.v {� J t } �4 ♦b ma � A 1''+m�yr �,t� F Y ..AA � � +L+iXM4h+w�«.R rrw .°%' V b •.r. >� '$ d{, �ii . �tl � 4't t h � �� -S,R' *k{ � 'i� 1 �u�'e� Y 1. 2 ko-AGnas+J� ° �� p��ya {'��,�` Wl3 'XMM1" y � tY" �. 'p4*i G arc' "F 3 1 �`•Y � *i+".� 'I"r� i�9 �u"�i "{� `C�d' £ q`i'�".. t l" 'S�� S, tt.. `J .e •�, . i.M �`J'i t^+x "(F�VM�y.a,{,*•� c - S.,� v �, yf Y�' _ a _ 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 2:00 PM City 10:00 AM ALRC 12:00 PM Mayors Council Meeting Lunch 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10:00 AM Public 7:00 PM C.V. 9:00 AM RCTC- 12:00 PM Energy/ Safety -Perkins Mosquito Abate. Pena Envi-Sniff 12:00 PM Transp. -Perkins 5:30 PM Invest- 7:00 PM Cultural -Perkins 7:00 PM Planning ment Advisory Arts Commission 6:00 PM League Commission Board of Cities-Riv.Div. Meeting 7:00 PM Commu- nity Services Commission 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9:00 AM CVB- Henderson 7:00 PM Special City Council 3:30 PM Historic Preservation 2:00 PM City Meeting (General Commission Council Meeting Plan) St. Patrick's Day aw 1 st Day of Spring 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 6:00 PM CVAG- 7:00 PM Planning 12:00 PM CVAG 9:00 AM LAFCO- Exec Com-Pena Commission Human/Comm- Henderson Meeting Adolph 4:00 PM DRRA Airp-Henderson 31 t ,� �a.¢ i�"b r �� i � � �v �r$� i a La ��.'*a, � �• a � c, ^ ,� e �� E,� .� ,ed � April Easter February ��' <� S M T W T F S��r� M.�Y `�S. �, w1� �' i63, � tl �b9� *f i° µYk �(AaFi tlp� 1 2 �m w S MT WT F S ,z 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ,�*:M, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 " * ti} 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 c 28 29 30 t � t,!w Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 2/27/2002 94 April 2002 Monthly Planner r43 1 2 3 4 5 6 2:00 PM City 10:00 AM ALRC Council Meeting 3•n inn * NWu p a S l 11'V" R:I tom` 7T go i { W t r `X•• ".. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10:00 AM Public 7:00 PM C.V. 9:00 AM RCTC- 12:00 PM Energy/ T--O%N Safety -Perkins Mosquito Abate. Pena Envi-Sniff 12:00 PM Transp. -Perkins 5:30 PM Invest- 7:00 PM Cultural Daylight Savings -Perkins 7:00 PM Planning ment Advisory Arts Commission Time 6:00 PM League Commission Board of Cities-Riv.Div. Meeting 7:00 PM Commu- nity Services Commission 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9:00 AM CVB- 3:30 PM Historic ` Henderson Preservation 2:00 PM City Commission Council Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:00 PM Planning 12:00 PM CVAG 9:00 AM LAFCO- Commission Human/Comm- Henderson Meeting Adolph 4:00 PM DRRA Airp-Henderson 20th Anniversary Events 28 29 30 * i 6:00 PM CVAG- Exec Com-Pena March May S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16'" 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 rx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 A" i 1 +•s`is' ea- i AS {�"+ 4 � t .. A� 1 Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 2/27/2002 �. May 2002 Monthly Planner April S M T W T F S June S MT W T F S Lunch 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Happy Birthday 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 La Quintn 28 29 30 30 iL wEJ C,J' 1 � k 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2:00 PM City 9:00 AM RCTC- 12:00 PM Energy/ Council Meeting Pena Envi-Sniff 5:30 PM Invest- 7:00 PM Cultural ment Advisory Arts Commission Board 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 066 10:00 AM Public Safety -Perkins 7:00 PM C.V. Mosquito Abate. 3:30 PM Historic Preservation Mother's Day 12:00 PM Transp. -Perkins -Perkins 7:00 PM Planning Commission 6:00 PM League Commission of Cities-Riv.Div. Meeting 7:00 PM Commu- nity Services Commission 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9:00 AM CVB- 12:00 PM CVAG 9:00 AM LAFCO- Henderson Human/Comm- Henderson 2:00 PM City Adolph Council Meeting 4:00 PM DRRA Airp-Henderson 26 27 28 29 30 31 7:00 PM Planning Commission Meeting Memorial Day (City Hall Closed) Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 2/27/2002 �'% COUNCILIRDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Development Impact Fees AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council amending Resolution No. 99-80 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Study dated January 2002. Implementation of the recommendation outlined in this report will generate approximately $60,179,299 in projected revenue, assuming that all development anticipated in the City General Plan actually occurs. The following is a breakdown according to the Development Impact Fee Study: Transportation $34,326,490 Park $ 9,641,034 Civic Center $ 7,282,953 Fire Protection Facilities $ 2,186,385 Library $ 4,322,783 Community Centers $ 1,862,845 Streets/Park Maintenance $ 556,809 TOTAL: $60,179,299 The Development Impact Fees calculated in the Development Impact Fee Report are intended to represent the maximum Impact Fee amount justified by the analysis. The City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is important that the City Council identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced Impact Fees and the share of total costs and funding sources required to recover the shortfall in the Development Impact Fee Program. It should be emphasized that all costs used in this report are in current dollars. The proposed Development Impact Fee Policy follows the requirements set out in Government Code Section 66000 et seq., with the exception that the payment of the fees will remain at the time of the issuance of a Building Permit rather than the time of issuing the Occupancy 2 4 /1 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd Permit. The City's Charter gives the City authority to implement the City's own procedures for matters of local concern and by continuing the prior timing requirement, the City is better able to insure the timely construction of public infrastructure as needed by the new development. On March 19, 1985, the City Council passed Resolution No. 85-26 "Infrastructure Fee Policy" in order to ensure that adequate funding was available for the construction of infrastructure required by the development of the City. On August 4, 1987, the City Council passed Resolution No. 87-39 which amended Resolution No. 85-26. This Resolution updated the Community Infrastructure Fee based on projects identified as part of the Infrastructure Fee Policy. The Infrastructure Fee Policy established a fee upon development which equated to 1.5 % of the home valuation for residential development and $6,000 per acre for commercial/industrial development. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to this development project." Public facilities are defined in this statute to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 assembly bill in which they originated. The US Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interests. The court made clear that an agency must also show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. For this reason, the City Council retained DMG to prepare a report identifying all required infrastructure at "build out" and in 1999, Development Impact Fees per land use identifying the proper nexus in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) were adopted. To satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or opposing impact fees must make findings to: 1 . Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. �1 0 0 4 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd The Development Impact Fee Study satisfies all requirements for establishing a legally defensible Development Impact Fee per the City's identified "build out" infrastructure in accordance with the City's General Plan. The Development Impact Fee Study has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) including Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The broad purpose of the Impact Fees is to protect the public's health, safety, and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities required by the growth and development of the City. The specific purpose of the Fees, as recommended in the Development Impact Fee Study, is to fund the construction of certain Capital Improvements which are identified in the Study. The improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La Quinta and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if Impact Fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. Public Facilities The May 1999 Development Impact Fee report prepared by DMG has been updated in the January 2002 Development Impact Fee Study (Attachment 1). It was updated in collaboration with all of the City departments and representatives of Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG). For purposes of clarification, each type of public facility will be explained separately. The types of public facilities included in the Development Impact Fee Study include the following: 1. Transportation Improvements 2. Parks and Recreation Facilities 3. Civic Center Expansion 4. Library 5. Community Centers 6. Maintenance Facilities 7. Fire Protection Facilities Transportation Improvements City staff completed windshield surveys of all the existing infrastructure within the City of La Quinta. This information was compared to the City's General Plan Circulation Element to determine what infrastructure would be required at "build out." Streets in the General Plan have been designed in accordance with policy 3-2.1.3 of the Circulation Element which establishes a level of service of D (LOS D) as the minimum standard for streets in La Quinta. It further provides that no development projects shall be approved without adequate mitigation if it will create conditions that violate that standard. The detailed cost estimate for the transportation section is included in the Development Impact Fee Study as Appendix A. The development related improvement costs to be funded by Impact Fees calculated in this Study include street (widening and extension) projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge construction, new traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls. J C:\W1ND0WS\TEMP\020305A.WPD Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of the projects on which the Impact Fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane plus curb, gutter, and sidewalks on arterial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas, this requirement also includes a parking lane. As a result, the Impact Fees associated with street widening for arterial streets will cover only the costs of additional travel lanes (e.g., the two inside lanes on a four lane arterial), as well as median improvements on those arterials where they do not already exist. These construction costs and right-of-way costs for all major arterials and primary arterials are included in the Study. Bridge improvements have been identified in the Study by location, as have the traffic signals. Possible future sound attenuation walls have been identified in the Study for Avenue 50, Washington Street, Fred Waring Drive, Jefferson Street, and Avenue 52. The cost for sound walls along vacant land has been compiled for informational purposes only and is not included as part of the Impact Fees. The reason that vacant land was not included was the developer may be conditioned to construct a sound attenuation wall as part of their development for sound mitigation. The only areas that have been included are locations where existing development is in place and no sound walls are present. The justification for including costs for existing development sound walls in the Development Impact Fees is that new development causes an increase in traffic which may raise the level of noise in front of existing development to the point in which sound walls are required as offsite mitigation. The inclusion of these sound walls into the Development Impact Fees will provide a funding source supported by all future development for sound attenuation on existing development along major arterials. The total cost estimate for transportation improvements included in the Development Impact Fees is estimated at $34,326,490. The nexus utilized for the transportation improvements is peak hour trip miles generated by development. Both the number of trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour capacity needed to serve development (see Attachment 2). The recommended portion of the Impact Fees relative to park and recreation improvements are based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The Impact Fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks will be required by the City from subdividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). The park portion of the Impact Fees calculated in the report is intended to cover only the cost of park improvements and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or "fee -in -lieu" requirements proposed pursuant to the Quimby Act. T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd 24,7 L1 0► 0 4 The projected impact fee revenue from future development for parks is estimated at $9,641,034. The City presently has 32.7 acres of existing parks for an existing population estimated at 24,300. This equates to a level of service of 1 .Zt park acres per 1,000 population. The estimated cost of $150,000 an acre for park improvements was utilized for calculating the estimated cost of future construction. This amount is based on the actual costs for improvements of the Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park and a review of recent park construction bids in the region. It should be noted that the estimated cost used in this analysis covers only basic park improvements such as landscaping and irrigation, picnic facilities and playgrounds. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools. Since the need for park acres is defined in terms of population, the portion of the Impact Fees for park improvements will apply only to residential development. The Impact Fees for each type of residential development is based on the estimated population per EDU for each type of development. The existing Civic Center (City Hall) was completed in 1993. It has adequate space to serve a portion of the City's anticipated growth, but expansion will be required prior to build out. The Civic Center has a citywide service area so the portion of the Impact Fees relative to the Civic Center has been calculated on a citywide basis. The Impact Fee analysis for the Civic Center assumes that the existing facility and a planned expansion will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. The Civic Center portion of the Impact Fees was calculated by allocating* total costs for the Civic Center Facility on the same basis to all existing and future development, allowing Civic Center costs to be shared proportionately by all users. The Development Impact Fee Study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for the Civic Center. Acreage is the most general measure of development and is applicable to all types of development. Acreage devoted to parks, schools, and other public facilities are excluded from the cost allocation, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center. Only the portion of golf course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and maintenance facilities have been included. The Study estimates that portion to be 5 % of the total acreage of a golf course. The existing La Quinta Civic Center contains 33,000 square feet of gross floor area, and is adequate to serve the City's current needs. The original building plans called for the addition of 15,000 square feet in the future. The resulting 48,000 square foot building is expected to serve the City's needs well into the future. Although additional facilities may be needed prior to build out, this Study makes the conservative assumption that the existing Civic Center and the proposed expansion will serve the City's need at build out. Because the Civic Center serves both existing and future development, the cost of the entire facility will be allocated on the same basis to both existing and future development. The projected Impact Fee revenue is estimated at $7,282,953. All development, except for public facilities, schools, and parks, 943 00 v T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd will pay for this portion of the fee. This study assumes that a library will be constructed to service residents, and that any library constructed in La Quinta will have to be funded by the City. The portion of the Impact Fees for libraries was based on the cost to serve new development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The Impact Fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita, and assumes the City will ultimately construct a 20,000 square foot library to serve both existing and future development. Even after allowing the credit for the value of the collection of the existing store front library and the collection there is a deficiency in existing library facilities, relative to the standard used in the Study; therefore, the City will have to contribute approximately $2,414,000 from nonimpact fee sources to justify Impact Fees at the recommended level. The projected impact fee revenue from future development for a library is estimated at $4,322,783. Because library facility needs are defined in terms of population, Impact Fees for library facilities would apply only to residential development. The portion of the Impact Fees in this Study related to Community Center Facilities are estimated on those facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City presently has one existing community center facility. This is the multipurpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center. The City has not adopted a level of service standard for Community Center Facilities; therefore, in order to complete this calculation, the Study utilizes the current level of service for existing development. The existing level of service is 0.13 square feet per capita based on the estimated population and the square footage of the multipurpose room in the Senior Center. The cost utilized was the actual cost that the City incurred while building the multipurpose room section of the Senior Center. The projected impact fee revenue for future development for a Community Center is $1,862,845. Because the Community Center Facility needs are defined in terms of population, Impact Fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development. The portion of the Impact Fees to fund capital costs for development related street and park maintenance facilities and equipment is based on the City's current level of investment relative to existing development. Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements using peak hour trip miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities and equipment are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to represent demand. Therefore, street maintenance facilities are applied to 2 Q J If 006 TAPW DEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a. wpd all types of development while park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. The projected impact fee revenue from future development is estimated at $556,809. Public facilities, schools, and parks were not utilized as contributing to the revenue for the street and park maintenance facilities. Fire protection in La Quinta is provided for by the Riverside County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Two fire stations exist in La Quinta at present. Another station will be required in the future to serve development in the northern portion of the City, and one existing station must be expanded because it is too small to meet future urban fire protection needs. Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide the first response to emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire protection in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the City for essentially the same level of service. Accordingly, costs for fire protection facilities are allocated citywide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times. Response times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in responding to an emergency call, and that distance is determined by the size of the area covered by a particular fire station. Levels of service must be translated into facility needs accordingly based on running distance and projected response times. The City also plans for one additional fire station to serve the northern portion of the City. Thus, one additional fire station and an expansion of the existing County owned fire station, will be required to provide adequate coverage for the City at build out. The demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is developed acreage, excluding acreage devoted to schools, parks, and other public facilities. This same methodology will be utilized for the future fire facilities. The projected impact fee from future development is $2,186,385. Development Impact Fees Set forth below is Table S-1 from Page S-5 of the Development Impact Fee Study dated January 2002 that identifies the total fee for each type of land use per unit of development that is proposed as part of this Study. An adjustment to each fee has been made to recover the cost of the Study and future studies. The adjustment assumes that it will be necessary to update the study every five years. In the past, the City has collected an average of $2,000,000 per year in Impact Fees. At an estimated cost of $53,000 to update the study, divided by the $10,000,000 that would have been collected in a five-year period, it is assumed 25 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd v U ` 0 0 r� that a percentage of 0.53% would need to be added as a multiplier to the fees in order to fund the study updates. These percentage increases have been included in Table S-1. Table S-1 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development Type in ilrits aiQa .:. Rec5. Center 1'rotecpn renterslnt faint Fac Res (SFD)' DU2 $1,098 $502 $366 $97 $225 $97 $15 $5 $2,405 Res (SFA)3 DU $1,098 $352 $229 $78 $158 $68 $15 $3 $2,001 Res (MFO)4 DU $641 $460 $44 $32 $206 $89 $8 $4 $1,484 Office/Hosp KSFS $2,116 - $54 $58 - - $28 - $2,256 General KSF $1,724 - $95 $32 - - $23 - $1,874 Com Tourist Room $558 - $74 $42 - - $7 - $681 Com Golf Acre $204 - $56 $16 - - $3 - $279 Courses In developing this Study, City staff worked directly with Mr. Ed Kibbey of the Building Industry Association (BIA) in order to assure a full understanding between the Building Industry and the City in regard to the Development Impact Fee Study prior to the City Council taking action. Included with this report as Attachment 3 is the Development Impact Fee Comparison Spreadsheet. In this spreadsheet, the proposed La Quinta Development Impact Fee is compared with the existing La Quinta Development Impact Fee adopted in 1999. There is also a comparison with the development fees of the Cities of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Indio. These Cities were chosen because they most closely relate to the type of development occurring in the City of La Quinta. TUMF In September 1984, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) began development of the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) to identify the Coachella Valley's street and highway needs through the year 2010. Based on the CVATS completed in December 1987, $800,000,000 in State, Regional, and 1 Residential - Single Family Detached 2 Dwelling Unit 3 Residential - Single Family Attached 4 Residential - Multi -family and other 2J 1 5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area u 008 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd Local improvements were identified. Approximately $590,000,000 of that amount was earmarked for new improvements to the Regional Arterial System. Proposed facilities include improved freeway interchanges, railroad crossings, bridges across the Whitewater River and other channels, and major arterials. Through this Coachella Valley Sub Regional Planning Effort, it was determined that approximately 50% of the projects on the future streets and highway system which are needed to accommodate growth would be built using existing transportation revenues (developer contributions and local streets and road funding). The remaining 50% of the needed funding would be provided by alternative funding mechanisms. CVAG staff concluded that two funding mechanisms may be appropriate as alternative funding mechanisms in implementation of the system. One funding mechanism would be 25% from the 1 /2% sales tax (Measure "A" program), and the other 25 % would be funded by implementing a Valley wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley, two are not directly participating in the TUMF Program. These are the Cities of La Quinta and Coachella. In addition to TUMF Fees, the effective local agencies are encouraged to provide additional funding for regional projects through the City's Gas Tax Subvention, Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Funds Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), developer dedications and the local share of the Measure "A" 1 /2% Sales Tax. Staff has analyzed the City's position regarding the TUMF Program. Staff is not recommending changing the City's position at this time. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council amending Resolution No. 99780 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the updated Development Impact Fee Study dated January 2002; or 2. Do not adopt a Resolution of the City Council amending Resolution No. 99-80 relative to the Development Impact Fee Policy pursuant to the updated Development Impact Fee Study dated January 2002; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectful Roy F` te'P— e6sWn, P.E. Interi(h Public Works Director/City Engineer 009 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd Approved for Submission by: r Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Development Impact Fee Study, January 2002 2. Basis for Number of Trips Generated 3. Development Impact Fee Comparison Spreadsheet 01.0 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 99-80, RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982; and WHEREAS, since its incorporation, the City has been and continues to experience significant development activity in the form of applications and proposals for new residential and commercial land development within the City; and WHEREAS, there is a lack of public improvements and facilities, including a deficiency in public safety facilities, and the City is responsible for maintaining an appropriate level of service to the present and future citizens of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, the City's existing circulation system is inadequate to handle current and future traffic patterns and it is essential to widen City streets which have inadequate width, improve the circulation system to accommodate an anticipated increase in traffic, and improve and develop bridges and traffic signals suitable for traffic flow and to minimize conflicts between vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; and WHEREAS, the continued and cumulative development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and demand for the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including but not limited to fire stations, park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings directly from new development and the need cannot be met and financed from ordinary City revenues; and WHEREAS, the most practicable and equitable method of paying for such needed facilities is to impose a fee upon new development within the City and the payment of such a fee enables the City to fund a construction program to provide such public facilities as they are required and demanded; that when a development pays the Development Impact Fee established by this policy, the City Council will be able to find that all necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the need and, in the event such finding cannot be made, the City Council will be required to disapprove the development as being inconsistent with the General Plan; and 254 11 0�,Oil Resolution No. 2002- Development Fees Adopted: 02/19/02 Page 2 WHEREAS, in 1989 the California Statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase, and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project"; and WHEREAS, public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities"; and WHEREAS, these requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB1600" requirements after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of a fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and type of development on which the fee is imposed; C. The amount of the fee and the public facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides authority to the City to regulate all Municipal affairs under Article 1 Section 100; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this fee program and procedures as set out in this Resolution is found to be a matter of local concern to implement in a timely manner public infrastructures; and WHEREAS, the City in 1999 conducted studies relative to future community infrastructure needs; the funds necessary to meet said capital improvement needs; and the relationship between those needs and future development; and based upon said studies and reports, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-80; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Development Impact Fee Study report has been updated in a report titled "2002 Development Impact Fee Study." 2 u 01 �. Resolution No. 2002- Development Fees Adopted: 02/19/02 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Findi_nas. Each WHEREAS paragraph, set forth above, is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council. The City Council further finds that: a. The report entitled "Development Impact Fee Study," dated January 2002 (the "Fee Study"), accurately states the City's need of and lack of ability to provide for the described public buildings, facilities and services to serve new development. The Fee Study sets forth a necessary and reasonable method of funding said buildings and facilities. The Fee Study shows that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the projected types of development; the need for the various public facilities by the projected types of development pursuant to the City's General Plan; and the amount of the fee and the proportionate facility cost related to the development. The Fee Study is hereby approved and incorporated herein by this reference. b. The categories of community infrastructure and the percent of said infrastructure fee attributed to each category of infrastructure in the Fee Study are as follows: Transportation 57.08% Parks 16.03 % Civic Center 12.05% Library 7.19% Community Centers 3.10% Street/Park Maintenance 0.92 % Fire Protection Facilities 3.63% C. As set forth in detail in the Fee Study, in order to allow residential, and commercial land development to proceed in an orderly manner, while insuring that all new development is consistent with the General Plan, including the Public Building and Facilities Element, it is necessary and appropriate to approve the following Development Impact Fee to be imposed upon new development. Said fee will assist the City in funding a construction program to provide such needed public buildings and facilities as they are required and needed. 9 .3u �,o� i , Resolution No. 2002- Development Fees Adopted: 02/19/02 Page 4 2. Development Impact Fee Policy Amount. Prior to approval of any zoning, re zoning, subdivision, or development proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Development Impact Fee in the following amount for the following type development: a. Residential Single Family Detached - $2,405 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) b. Residential Single Family Attached - $2,001 per EDU C. Residential Multi Family Other - $1,484 per EDU d. Office/Hospital - $2,256 per 1,000 square feet of floor area (KSF) e. General Commercial - $1,874 per KSF f. Tourist Commercial - $681 per room g. Golf Courses - $279 per acre The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building permit. 3. Use of Funds Capital Outlay. All proceeds from fees collected pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Policy shall be paid into special capital outlay funds to be established by the City. Said fund or funds shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property and public improvements and facilities described as community infrastructure in this Resolution, as the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds available from the special capital outlay fund(s) shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the City Council may direct. 4. Exclusions and Exceptions. There is excluding from the fees imposed by policy, the following: a. Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. b. The construction of any facility by the City of La Quinta, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. 5. Credits. Other Methods of Providing Infrastructure. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Development Impact Fee shall be in addition to 257 014 Resolution No. 2002- Development Fees Adopted: 02/19/02 Page 5 and not in lieu of other valid exactions imposed upon new development through the subdivision or other approval processes. Provided; however, that payment of the Development Impact Fee shall be in lieu of payment of the public facilities and equipment and traffic signalization funds pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code, 3.17.020. Provided further that in the event developer is required to directly provide infrastructure improvements specifically provided for in the fee structure, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against the "Development Impact Fee." The City hereby determines that the infrastructure fee is not intended to be the exclusive method of installation of needed public buildings and facilities and the City will consider alternative proposals to provide needed infrastructure to particular development and, to the extent such alternative proposal is discretionary approved by the City Council, developer shall receive a fair and equitable credit against payment of the Development Impact Fee. Any developer seeking alternative methods of installation shall submit such proposal to the City at the time of submittal of an application for development. 6. Validity. Severance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such holding or holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. In determining the amount of Development Impact Fee, the City Council. has been guided by the Fee Study mentioned in paragraph one hereof. In the event any category of such fee shall be declared invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other category. The City Council further finds, declares and determines that the Development Impact Fee on all remaining valid fee categories shall be increased by the amounts of the fee categories declared invalid. Provided; however, that the amount of the remaining valid fee categories shall not be so increased over and above the amount recommended by said report for each category. 253 015 Resolution No. 2002- Development Fees Adopted: 02/19/02 Page 6 Development Director shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. His decision may be appealed to the City Council whose decision shall be final. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute necessary agreements for the administration of this policy. This Resolution shall become effective May 4, 2002 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th Day of March 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: John J. Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 25,E 016 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY JANUARY, 2002 260 o1s City o f La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL John J. Pena, Mayor Stanley Sniff, Mayor Pro Tem Don Adolph, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council Member Terry Henderson, Council Member CITY MANAGER Thomas P. Genovese CITY STAFF Building and Safety Department Thomas Hartung, Building and Safety Director City Attorney's Office M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney City Manager's Office Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager Community Development Department Jerry Herman, Community Development Director Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Community Services Department Dodie Horvitz, Community Services Director Finance Department John Falconer, Finance Director Public Works Department Roy F. Stephenson, P.E., Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer OTHER ASSISTANCE Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Dan Miller January, 2002 ?61 019 City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary A. Organization of the Report S-1 B. Facilities Addressed in this Report S-1 C. Development Projections S-1 D. Impact Fee Analysis S-2 E. Recovery of Study Cost S-4 F. Summary of Impact Fees S-4 G. Projected Revenue S-5 H. Implementation S-5 Section 1 - Introduction A. Legal Background 1-1 B. Purpose of the Fees 1-3 C. Use of the Fees 1-3 D. Reasonable Relationship Requirement 1-3 E. Impact Fee Methodology 1-4 F. Facilities to be Addressed 1-6 G. Relationship to the General Plan 1-6 Section 2 - Land Use and Development Potential A. Background and Setting 2-1 B. Study Area and Time Frame 2-1 C. Residential Development and Population 2-1 D. Non -Residential Development 2-3 E. Measures of Development 2-3 F. Existing and Forecasted Development 2-4 Section 3 - Transportation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 3-1 B. Level of Service 3-1 C. Demand Variable 3-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 3-2 E. Impact Fees 3-6 Section 4 - Parks and Recreation Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 4-1 B. Level of Service 4-1 C. Demand Variable 4-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 4-3 E. Impact Fees 4-3 January, 2002 2 r 2 a.. 000 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con t'd) Section 5 - Civic Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 5-1 B. Level of Service 5-1 C. Demand Variable 5-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 5-2 E. Impact Fees 5-4 Section 6 - Library Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 6-1 B. Level of Service 6-1 C. Demand Variable 6-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 6-2 E. Impact Fees 6-3 Section 7 - Community Center Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 7-1 B. Level of Service 7-1 C. Demand Variable 7-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 7-2 E. Impact Fees 7-2 Section 8 - Maintenance Facility Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 8-1 B. Level of Service 8-1 C. Demand Variable 8-1 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 8-1 E. Impact Fees 8-3 Section 9 - Fire Protection Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame 9-1 B. Level of Service 9-1 C. Demand Variable 9-2 D. Facility Needs and Cost Allocation 9-3 E. Impact Fees 9-3 F. Projected Revenue 9-5 Section 10 - Implementation A. Adoption 10-1 B. Administration 10-1 C. Training and Public Information 10-6 Appendix A - Detailed Cost Estimates for Street Improvements January, 2002 3 2 6 , 021 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is an update of the May 1999 Development Impact Fee report completed for the City by DMG- Maximus, Inc. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) which is commonly known as "AB 1600", and to support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the establishment and imposition of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section 1 of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It sets forth legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees as well as methods used in this study to calculate the fees. Section 2 contains information on existing and planned land uses and development in La Quinta, and organizes that data in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 10 discusses procedures and legal requirements for implementing an impact fee program under California law. It addresses adoption, administration, and training. B. FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT The types of public facilities covered by this report are listed below, along with the report sections in which they are addressed. Transportation Improvements (Section 3) Parks and Recreation Facilities (Section 4) Civic Center (Section 5) Libraries (Section 6) Community Centers (Section 7) Maintenance Facilities (Section 8) Fire (Section 9) C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development expected to occur in La Quinta from January 2001 to buildout of the City under the current General Plan. It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which buildout will occur. Estimated development potential of the study area was evaluated by the La Quinta Community Development Department and is based on the current La Quinta General Plan. Other data on development and demographics were taken from the 1990 Census, Department of Finance Population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. January, 2002 Page S-1 26 022 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study As shown in Section 2 of this report, La Quinta's population and developed acreage at buildout are expected to reach more than three times their current levels. The number of vehicle trips generated in the City is projected to increase to more than three times the current level. The extent of that growth potential has important implications for future City facility needs. D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. In each case, the relationship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that allows impact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. For each type of facility, a specific, measurable attribute of development was used to represent the demand for additional capital facilities. Recommended impact fees for all types of facilities are summarized in Table S-1, page 5-4. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do not include any ongoing costs for maintenance or operations. The following paragraphs briefly discuss factors considered in the analysis of each type of facility Transportation Improvements. The recommended impact fees for street system improvements are based on the cost of improvements to major and primary arterial streets, bridges and interchanges, traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls required to serve future development in La Quinta. Those fees assume that developers will continue to be directly responsible for internal streets, and for certain arterial street improvements in cases where a project fronts on an arterial. Specific improvements to be funded by the impact fee are listed in the report. The relationship between development and the need for additional street capacity is defined in the study as a function of additional peak hour trip -miles generated by development (See Section 2 for a discussion of peak hour trip -miles). Park and Recreation Improvements. The recommended impact fee for park and recreation improvements is based on the cost of improvements needed to maintain the existing level of service, defined as the ratio of park acreage to population. The impact fee analysis addresses neighborhood and community parks only. The proposed impact fees do not include the cost of land acquisition, and are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee -in -lieu requirements under the Quimby Act. Since the need for park acreage is defined in terms of population, the impact fee for park improvements will apply only to residential development. Civic Center. The impact fee analysis for the civic center assumes that the existing facility and a planned expansion will be adequate to serve existing and future development in La Quinta. Impact fees were calculated by allocating total costs for the civic center facility on the same basis to all existing and future development. That method allows civic center costs to be shared proportionately by all users. The relationship between development and the need for additional space in the civic center is complex and indirect. For reasons explained in the body of the report, this study uses developed acreage to represent the demand for facilities civic center. January, 2002 Page S-2 26: G23 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Libraries. The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to serve new development at a level of service somewhat lower than the standard specified in the La Quinta General Plan. The adopted standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The impact fee analysis is based on 0.22 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita, and assumes that the City will ultimately construct a 20,000 square foot library to serve both existing and future development. Because of the deficiency in existing facilities relative to the standard used in the study, the City will have to contribute approximately $1.76 million from non -impact fee sources to justify impact fees at the recommended level --even after allowing a credit for the value of the collection in the existing storefront library. Because library facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for library facilities would apply only to residential development. Community Center Facilities. Impact fees for community center facilities are based on the cost of maintaining the City's current level of service in terms of square feet per capita. The only existing community center facility identified in the study is the multi -purpose room at the Senior Center. Because community center facility needs are defined in terms of population, impact fees for those facilities would apply only to residential development. Maintenance Facilities. Impact fees to fund capital costs for development -related street and park maintenance facilities and equipment are based on the City's current level of investment relative to existing development. Costs for street and park maintenance facilities are allocated separately, in a manner that reflects differences in their relationship to development. Costs for street maintenance facilities are allocated on the same basis as the cost of street improvements, using peak hour trip -miles to represent demand. Costs for park maintenance facilities and equipment are allocated on the same basis as the cost of park improvements, using population to represent demand. As a result, impact fees for street maintenance facilities apply to all types of development while impact fees for park maintenance facilities apply only to residential development. Fire Protection Facilities. The impact fees for fire protection facilities were based on the need for one new fire station and the expansion of one existing fire station to serve future development in La Quinta. Impact fees were calculated by dividing the cost of future fire stations needs by the total acreage capable of for future development. E. RECOVERY OF STUDY COST As with other types of analysis needed to obtain funding for capital facilities, the cost of preparing this study may be recovered through impact fees. The fee summary shown in Table S-1 is based on the fees calculated in Sections 3-9, but the fees have been adjusted to incorporate the cost of a future study. That adjustment assumes it will be necessary to update the study in five years, and that the City will collect an average of $2 million per year in impact fees. Thus, the $53,000 cost of the study is divided by $10 million (the projected five year total of all impact fees to be collected by the City) to determine the percentage increase needed to recover the cost of the study. That percentage is 0.53%, so the fees have been increased by just over one-half January, 2002 Page S-3 0 62 4 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study percentage point to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees calculated in subsequent sections of this report have been multiplied by 1.0053 to arrive at the fees shown in Table S-1, below. F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES Table S-1 summarizes the recommended impact fees by development category and facility type. The amounts shown in that table based on the analysis in subsequent sections of this report. Table S-1 Summary of Calculated Impact Fees per Unit of Development bard veap Tip Perks 1vi+c Fi z ril Caaui� tr+# Pik Toti, 'T'ype mint ortatio / Ric C�eater PrQtecti�cin Cen#ers 'iit mint ` Res (SFD)' DUz $1,098 $502 $366 $97 $225 $97 $15 $5 $2,405 Res (SFA)3 DU $1,098 $352 $229 $78 $158 $68 $15 $3 $2,001 Res (MFO)4 DU $641 $460 $44 $32 $206 $89 $8 $4 $1,484 Office/Hosp KSF5 $2,116 - $54 $58 - - $28 - $2,256 General Com KSF $1,724 - $95 $32 - - $23 - $1,874 Tourist Com Room $558 - $74 $42 - - $7 - $681 Golf Courses Acre $204 - $56 $16 - - $3 - $279 G. PROJECTED REVENUE Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to build out, assuming that the fees are adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. 1 Residential - Single Family Detached 2 Dwelling Unit 3 Residential - Single Family Attached 4 Residential - Multi -family and other 5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area January, 2002 - Page S-4 26 7 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table S-2 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Transportation $34,326,490 Parks $9,641,034 Civic Center $7,282,953 Fire Stations $2,186,385 Libraries $4,322,783 Community Centers $1,862,845 Street and Park Maintenance $556,809 TOTAL $60,179,299 H. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee program raises both practical and policy issues. Section 10 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee program, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of fees, accountability for fee revenues, expenditure time limits, reporting and refunding requirements, updating of fees, and staff training. From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costs to be funded by impact fees, and other sources of funding to be used for those facilities not funded by the fees. The development impact fees calculated in this report are intended to represent the maximum impact fee amount justified by the analysis. Of course, the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recommended. In that event, it is important that the Council identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and the share of total cost to be recovered through the fees. 6 Project Revenue in current dollars. January, 2002 Page S-5 ��v 0 r) City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION I INTRODUCTION In 1996, the City of La Quinta retained DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. (formerly David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd.) to analyze the fiscal impacts of anticipated development on certain public facilities, and to prepare a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. DMG-MAXIMUS, INC. completed a study that was approved by the City Council in May 1999. This document is an update of that study and is intended to satisfy the legal requirements governing such fees, including but not limited to those portions of the California Government Code known as The Mitigation Fee Act (Sections 66000 et seq.) which govern the establishment and imposition of fees levied as a condition of development project approval. Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed on development projects to recover capital costs for public facilities needed to serve those new developments and the additional residents, employees, and visitors they bring to the community. The use of impact fees has become widespread in California in the last decade as a response to local government budget strains brought on by tax limitations, reallocation of revenues, and a loss of federal and state financial assistance. Many communities have increased their reliance on developers for funding of development -related public facilities. California law does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for ongoing maintenance or operating costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended in this report are based on capital costs only. A. LEGAL BACKGROUND The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it may be found in general grants of authority to local governments under most state constitutions. California's impact fee statutes do not contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on their police power or home rule powers for the authority to levy such fees. Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided they meet certain standards. Those standards are intended to insure, among other things, that impact fees do not violate Fifth Amendment limitation on the taking of private property. January, 2002 Page 1-1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the provision of adequate public facilities so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality of essential public services. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has found that an agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the government's legitimate interest. (See Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan vs. City of Tigard, 1994), the Court made clear that an agency also must show that an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. It should be noted that Dolan is less significant for impact fees than for other types of exactions (e.g., mandatory dedication of land) because proportionality is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application of Dolan to fee payments. California Law. In 1989, a California statute took effect which governs the establishment, increase and imposition of fees levied by local agencies as a condition of development project approval "for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. " Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." These requirements are found in the Mitigation Fee Act, (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and are commonly known as "AB 1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill in which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justifying impact fees. It also includes restrictions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requiring the refunding of fees under certain conditions. Annual reporting of activity in impact fee accounts is also required, as is a more complete reconciliation every five years. Reporting requirements were revised by the Legislature in 1996 as part of AB 1693, and are discussed in more detail in the Implementation Section of this report. To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings that: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. January, 2002 Page 1-2 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study B. PURPOSE OF THE FEES The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees recommended in this study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in La Quinta, and to prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. C. USE OF THE FEES If a fee subject to Government Code Section 66001 is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. This report is intended to fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calculate impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. D. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: The use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; The need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements closely resemble the "benefit," "impact," and "proportionality" elements, respectively, of the nexus standard which has evolved in the courts to test the validity of development exactions. In our opinion, "reasonable relationship" as defined by these requirements is identical to "nexus" as a practical matter. We will use the nexus terminology in this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. January, 2002 Page 1-3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Impact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government if the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality of public services for the entire community deteriorate. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in La Quinta are identified in subsequent sections of this report. The need for those improvements is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various type of facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. Benefit Relationship. A reasonable benefit relationship requires that fee revenues are expended to provide the facilities for which they are collected, and that those facilities are available to serve the development on which the fees are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees. Procedurally, statutory provisions governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and the requirement for refunding of fees not expended in a timely fashion, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Proportionality Relationship. A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. As a practical matter, compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed to serve new development, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands imposed on public facilities. It is well -established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in public facilities, to subsidize level -of -service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exaction, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees to meet the proportionality requirement are discussed below. E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the availability of information on facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of improvements needed to serve development, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. However, in practice, the calculation of impact fees is complicated by complex relationships between development and facility needs, and by limited information about future conditions. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. January, 2002 Page 1-4 ,` City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Plan -based Impact Fees. This method is used in this study to calculate impact fees for streets and certain community facilities. It is most appropriate where the estimated costs for a specified set of improvements (facility plans) are being allocated to all development represented by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented by each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned facilities will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to serving future development. For example, it may be necessary to widen a street from two lanes to four lanes to serve planned development, but some capacity may remain unused after that development occurs. The plan -based method is often the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by development --for example, with respect to administrative and law enforcement facilities. It is also useful for facilities such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. Capacity -based Impact Fees. The capacity -based method was not applied in this study and is discussed here to only provide additional background. It is most appropriate where the cost and capacity of a facility or system are known, and the amount of capacity used by a particular quantity of development can be measured or estimated. The total amount of development to be served need not be known to calculate the fee, so this method is not dependent on a specific land use plan or a specific set of development projections. This type of fee is established as a rate, or cost per unit of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development --provided that adequate capacity remains uncommitted in the facilities on which the fee is based. Capacity -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems. To calculate a capacity -based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility cost is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a development project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g., dwelling units or square feet of building area), the rate is multiplied by the amount of capacity needed to serve a particular quantity and type of development. Standard -based Impact Fees. The standard -based method was used in this study to calculate impact fees for parks, libraries, and community and senior centers. The standard -based method is related to the capacity -based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard -based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit -cost basis, and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of development. This approach differs from the capacity -based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. January, 2002 Page 1-5 2 't 031 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study The standard -based method is useful where facility need is defined in terms of a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain type of park can usually be estimated without knowing the location of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or administrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can then be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this method may not be well -suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following functions will be addressed in this study: ■ Transportation Improvements ■ Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Civic Center ■ Fire Protection Facilities ■ Libraries ■ Community Centers ■ Maintenance Facilities ■ Fire Protection Facilities G. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN Much of the analysis in this report is based on information contained in the City of La Quinta 1992 General Plan, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element. However, data on existing development has been updated to January 2001 by the La Quinta Community Development Department. Projections of future development used in this study are intended to reflect the development potential of all undeveloped land covered by the City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element. Except for specific applications noted in subsequent sections, no growth rate or build out date is assumed. January, 2002 Page 1-6 24 '° City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development potential, both existing and projected, must be analyzed in preparing the City's impact fee program. This section of the report organizes and correlates information on existing land use, population and employment, as well as projected development, to form a basis for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent sections of the report. The information in this section provides a framework for defining levels of service, for projecting public facilities needs, and for allocating the cost of new capital facilities between existing and future development, and among various types of new development. Information on land use and demographics for this study was prepared with the assistance of the La Quinta Community Development Department. Sources of data include the 1992 La Quinta General Plan, the 1990 U.S. Census, California Department of Finance population estimates, and the Residential and Commercial Development Status Reports prepared periodically by the Community Development Department. Data on existing land use, and demographics and development used in this report have been updated to January 2001. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING La Quinta is located in the desert resort area of the Coachella Valley in south-central Riverside County. The City is located along State Route 111, between the City of Indian Wells and City of Indio. In places, La Quinta is contiguous with both of those communities. Existing development in the City is primarily residential, and includes both conventional residential development and gated residential and resort communities, some of which contain one or more golf courses. Although a relatively small portion of the land in La Quinta is designated. for commercial use, major regional commercial development is occurring along Highway 111, and more is planned. A significant portion of the City's total land area lies on the steep slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains, and much of that land is reserved as open space. B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected from the present time to build out of the area encompassed by the 1992 La Quinta General Plan as amended. The impact fee analysis in this report does not depend on the rate or timing of development, so development projections in this section do not make assumptions about when build out will occur. C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION In this study, residential development is classified in one of three categories: Single -Family Detached, Single -Family Attached, which include condominiums and townhouses, and Multi-Family/Other which includes apartments and mobile homes. That breakdown is consistent with existing and anticipated patterns of residential development in La Quinta. Dwelling units are used as the basic measure of the amount of residential development in each category. According to the City's Residential Status Report, single-family detached units accounted for about 67% of all residential units at the end of 1996, with single-family attached units making up about 27%. Thus, together, the two categories make up approximately 94% of La r ry_- 213 January, 2002 Page 2-1 033 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Quinta's existing residential units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of Single-family detached units at build out will increase to 72%, with single-family attached and multi-family/other unit accounting for 19% and 9% respectively. Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of future population in La Quinta are used this study. Those estimates and projections are based on existing and forecasted dwelling units, and the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Demographic data from the 1990 Census and Department of Finance population estimates have been used in developing population estimates and forecasts. Population in group quarters makes up an insignificant percentage of the existing population, and is not addressed in population the forecasts. La Quinta's January 1998 population, as estimated by the state Department of Finance, was 20,441. That number represents permanent residents. However, as is the case for other desert resort communities, La Quinta's population increases considerably during the winter months, owing to an influx of seasonal residents. The 1990 Census, taken on April 1, showed that 39% of all residential units in La Quinta were vacant, including 26% which were for "seasonal, occasional, or recreational" use. The Community Development Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed the permanent population by as much as 50% during peak periods. Figure 2-A illustrates the growth of La Quinta's permanent population, which has tripled since the City's incorporation. The population figures shown in Figure 2-A are Department of Finance estimates for January 1 of each year, since 1991. 30000 20000 1 0 0 0 0 P E R M A N E MY P O P U L A T I O N 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 9 2001 FIGURE 2-A = P O P U L A T I O N Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is not especially useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuations in the population of La Quinta, the number of permanent residents of the City seriously understates the actual service demand represented by residential development in the City. Once a dwelling unit has been approved and constructed, the City is committed to serve the demand created by that unit. It has no control over whether, or when, such units are occupied. Thus, to better represent the City's service commitments, this study uses "potential population" as the basic measure of demand for population -related public services and the facilities that support them. January, 2002 Page 2-2 034 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study As used in this report, "potential population" means the number of people who would reside in the City if all dwelling units existing at a particular time were occupied. The potential population is estimated for each category of residential development by multiplying the number of dwelling units in that category (existing or future) by the average number of persons per occupied unit for that type of development. Potential population for the City as a whole is the sum of the potential populations for all categories of residential development. This study employs 1990 Census data to establish the average number of persons per occupied dwelling unit for each category of residential development. Those factors are used in estimating potential population as of January 2001, and at build out. Henceforth, unless otherwise indicated, when the term "population" is used in this report it will mean "potential population." D. NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In this study, private, non-residential development will be classified in three categories: Office, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial. The office and tourist commercial categories are equivalent to classifications used in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The General Commercial category used in this study encompasses all other types of commercial development addressed by the Land Use Element (Mixed/Regional, Community, Neighborhood, Commercial Park, and Village). La Quinta has no existing industrial development, and none is planned. For purposes of impact fee analysis, commercial development can be measured in a number of ways. In this report, the basic measure of development for office and general commercial uses is gross building area, in thousands of square feet (KSF). Tourist commercial development, which consists of hotels and associated uses, is measured in terms of guest rooms. Data on existing nonresidential development are taken from the Commercial Development Status Report. Forecasts of future nonresidential development to build out were prepared with the cooperation of the City's Community Development Department. E. MEASURES OF DEMAND Certain attributes of development, including acreage, population, trip generation, and trip length will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demand for certain public services, and to provide a yardstick for determining service levels for various types of facilities. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 later in this section present estimates of existing development and forecasts of future development in La Quinta, as measured by various relevant attributes. The numerical values of those factors used to measure those attributes for various types of development are shown in the footnotes to Table 2-1. Population and potential population were discussed above. The following paragraphs discuss other measures of demand used in this report. Acreage. Acreage is a basic attribute of all development. In this report, gross acreage is used as a measure of demand for fire protection facilities and general government facilities. 277 January, 2002 Page 2-3 03%) City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Trip Generation. The number of trips generated by various types of development is commonly used as a basis for allocating the cost of road improvements to various types of development. In this study, we have used peak hour trips, rather than average daily trips, in allocating improvement costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly than 24-hour trip generation to the need for additional street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is estimated by applying standard trip generation factors to units of development, such as acres, dwelling units, or square feet of building area. The trip generation rates used in this study are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual Trip Generation. (The 6th edition was used as the primary source, supplemented by data from the 4th edition). Trip Length and Peak Hour Trip -Miles. Both the number of trips generated by development and the length of those trips affect the amount of peak hour roadway capacity needed to serve development. Peak hour trip -miles (the product of peak hour trips and average trip length, by development type) will be used in this study as an index of demand for roadway capacity. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use type are published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication, Traffic Generators. Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, we believe they reasonably represent the relative relationship of trip lengths for various types of development. Because the cost of street improvements is allocated to development projects in proportion to their relative share of total demand, it is the relative relationship, rather than actual trip length, that is important here. It should be noted here that the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has developed trip length data for the Coachella Valley. However, those trip lengths are calculated by trip purpose rather than by land use type. In addition, they are intended to reflect travel on regional facilities, and do not include the portion of trips on local street networks. Consequently, the CVAG trip length information is not useful for purposes of this analysis. F. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development in La Quinta, by land use type, are presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3, beginning on the following page. Charts on this page illustrate graphically the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development (from Table 2-2). January, 2002 Page 2-4 036 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Figure 2-B shows residential development in terms of dwelling units by type. As that chart illustrates quite clearly, the number of dwelling units anticipated in the future is significantly greater than the number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quinta. 2 0 0 0 0 �9 Z J J 'f 0000 W 'i 45000 FIGURE 2-B R E s in E N T I A L s t<0 sFa. Ise r0 A o o E n W x lab T I N o Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential development in terms of square feet. Tourist Commercial is based on number of rooms. That chart makes it clear that the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development in La Quinta is very large relative to the amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impacts of future development on the demand for City services and public facilities will also be proportionately large. 11000 .4000 0 0 0 X 3000 W 2000 0; 4 Q N 1 000 0 FIGURE 2-C January, 2002 NO N-RESIDENTIAL O F F I C E G O M M T O U R aADDED IM E X I S T I N G 2'? 3 Page 2-5 037 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-1 Existing Development - As of January 2001 trap& C7s Tip atoms used Ads.. Fopto axles Taps.).. Residential (SF Detached) 2,772 DU' 10,657 31,971 10,764 85,032 Residential (SF Attached) 651 DU 2,929 6,151 2,958 23,370 Residential (Multi/Other) 86 DU 581 1,598 343 2,708 Office (Including 15 KSF 170 311 2,644 General Commercial 120 KSF 1,240 3,931 15,723 Tourist Commercial 65 Rooms 641 346 2,631 Public Facilities 70 KSF 246 1,953 11,719 Schools 82 Acres 82 107 426 Developed Parks 22 Acres 22 74 398 Golf Courses 2,339 Acres 2,339 702 3,508 TOTALS 6,222 39,720 21,488 1 148,1611 *NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 tabulate existing, future, and ultimate build out development, respectively. In those tables, residential development is shown in three categories: single family detached, single family attached, and mobile home/other. Private non residential development is broken down into several categories: offices, general commercial, and tourist commercial. Existing and forecasted acreage of public facilities, schools, parks, and golf courses are also tabulated to provide a more complete picture of traffic generation. This study assumes those land uses do not impact City services addressed in this study, except for the street system. 1 Existing and Future Development estimated provided by the City of La Quinta Community Development Department 2 Potential population figures assume 100% occupancy of dwelling units. Persons/DU factors based on 1990 census: SFD = 2.1; multi/Other = 2.75 3 Peak hour trip rates: SFD = 1.01/DU; SFA = 1.01/DU; Multi/Other = 0.59/DU; Office = 1.83/KSF; Gen Commercial = 3.17/KSF; Tourist Commercial = 0.54/Room; Public Facilities = 7.94/KSF; Schools = 1.3/Acre; Parks = 3.35/Acre; Golf = 0.30/Acre 4 Peak hour trip miles = peak hour trips x average trip miles (from SANDAG Traffic Generators). Average trip length and peak hour trip miles; Residential SFD/SFA = 7.9 mi (7.98); Residential MFO = 7.9 (4.66); Office = 8.5 mi (15.56); General Commercial = 4.0 mi (12.68); Tourist Commercial = 7.6 mi (4.10); Public Facilities = 6.0 mi (47.64); Schools = 4.0 mi (5.20); Parks = 5.4 mi (18.09); Golf Courses = 5.0 mi (1.50) 5 DU = Dwelling Units. KSF = 1,000 Square Feet Gross Area January, 2002 Page 2-6 2S'C 038 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-2 Forecasted New Development - January 2001 to Build Out Lanai t7s eveop ' . 1ev C )nitsQ Ofxts Pcter�tal Peak dour • P bout"xip Catgory:Lise Acres. t'opultion Trips :.ie.,finps ().. Residential (SF 4,504 DU 13,691 41,073 13,828 109,240 Residential (SF 1,501 DU 7,276 15,280 7,349 58,055 Residential 18 DU 450 1,238 266 2,097 Office 87 KSF 1,780 3,257 27,688 General 328 KSF 3,819 12,106 48,425 Tourist 47 Rooms 703 380 2,885 Public Facilities 10 KSF 55 437 2,620 Schools 0 Acres 0 0 0 Developed 103 Acres 103 345 1,863 Golf Courses 1,341 Acres 1,341 402 2,012 TOTALS 7.939 57,590 38,369 254,886 *NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes. Table 2-3 Ultimate Development at Build Out Ladd e}ewe]nped ?las : Deg Uinits NQ. }i` , 1?otntisl Pear Bt Ptak Hour "Ttip= Catepi;tJseres Units Populatton Trips MXes`'rtps (} Residential (SF Detached) 7,276 DU 24,348 73,044 24,591 194,273 Residential (SF Attached) 25152 DU 10,205 21,431 10,307 81,426 Residential (Multi/Other) 104 DU 1,031 2,835 608 4,805 Office (Including Hospitals) 102 KSF 1,950 3,569 30,332 General Commercial 448 KSF 5,039 15,974 63,895 Tourist Commercial 112 Rooms 1,344 726 5,516 Public Facilities 80 KSF 246 1,953 11,719 Schools 82 Acres 82 107 426 Developed Parks 125 Acres 125 419 2,261 Golf Courses 3,680 Acres 35680 1,104 5,520 TOTALS 14,161 1 1 97,310 59,357 400,174 *NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes. Table 2-3 shows the forecasted ultimate development in La Quinta at build out, as contemplated in the City of La Quinta General Plan. It represents the sum of existing development from Table 2-1 and forecasted future development from Table 2-2. Totals shown in Table 2-3 may differ slightly from the sum of figures in the other two tables due to the effects of rounding. January, 2002 Page 2-7 .-' U3j 28j- City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for street system improvements needed to handle traffic that will be generated by future development in La Quinta. The capital projects covered by the recommended impact fees involve only the arterial street system, and include street improvements, bridges, traffic signals, sound attenuation walls, and right-of-way purchases. Improvements to collector and local streets are not included in the impact fee analysis. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME This study addresses only improvements to the arterial street system, which serves the entire City. Consequently, the City will be treated as a single service area for purposes of calculating traffic impact fees. The time frame covered by this analysis is not defined as a certain number of years, but rather as the span of time required for build out of the undeveloped land designated for development in the La Quinta General Plan, as amended. That time frame depends on the rate at which development occurs, and the timing of development fluctuates according to economic conditions and other factors. Since the rate of development does not affect the calculation of impact fees addressed in this section of the report, assumptions about that rate are unnecessary here. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service on the components of a circulation system is evaluated by transportation planners in terms of traffic flow on streets and operational conditions at intersections. As stated in the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan, level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow and driver satisfaction. Level of service (LOS) is graded on a scale from "A" to "F." LOS A is characterized by free flowing traffic and no delay at intersections. LOS F represents over -saturated conditions resulting in serious congestion and significant intersection delays. Policy 3-2.1.3 of the Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum standard for streets in La Quinta, and provides that, no development project shall be approved, without adequate mitigation, if it will create conditions that violate that standard. The Circulation System Policy Diagram, which is part of the Circulation Element, identifies the street improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated development at the adopted minimum level of service standard. The Diagram is based on traffic modeling done in conjunction with preparation of the Circulation Element. The capital projects to be funded by traffic impact fees recommended in this section are consistent with the Policy Diagram, and do not include improvements needed to correct existing deficiencies in La Quinta's circulation system. C. DEMAND VARIABLE The demand variable used to represent the impact of development on La Quinta's circulation system are peak hour trip -miles. That variable, which is discussed in Section 2 of this report, is the product of the number of peak hour trips per unit of development and average trip length by development type. The use of peak hour trip -miles as a demand variable is intended to reflect the need for additional street system capacity resulting from new development. 282 January, 2002 Page 3-1 0 A City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The development -related improvement costs to be funded by impact fees calculated in this study include street widening and extension projects (including right-of-way acquisition), bridge construction, new traffic signals, and sound attenuation walls. Collector and local streets needed to serve new development are assumed to be constructed by developers as project improvements. The list of street projects on which the impact fee analysis is based assumes that developers will be directly responsible for constructing the outside travel lane, plus curb, gutter, and sidewalks on arterial streets fronting their projects. In residential areas this requirement will also include a parking lane. As a result, the impact fees for arterial streets will cover only the cost of additional travel lanes (e.g., the two inside lanes on a four -lane arterial), as well as median improvements, on those arterials where they do not already exist. Impact fees for street improvements are intended to cover only the cost of improvements that do not currently exist and will not be constructed by developers as a condition of project approval. Estimates of costs for bridges and traffic signals to be covered by impact fees assume that a portion of the cost of some improvements will be contributed by other agencies, such as the City of Indio or Riverside County. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 identify the street system capital improvements attributable to future development. Total costs for development -related street -system improvements are shown in Table 3-6. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates are included in Appendix A. Table 3-1 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs - Major Arterials FalUty C�►nstaictian Cast R�ib�t»af»may Mast Total fast Fred Waring Drive $15720,280 $0 $1,720,280 Highway 111 $969,800 $0 $969,800 Washington Street $2,003,840 $510,000 $25513,840 Jefferson Street $283,200 $2,087,120 $2,370,320 Avenue 52 $490,000 $0 $490,000 TOTAL _ $5,467,120 $2,597,120 $8,064,240 See Appendix A for detailed cost estimates January, 2002 Page 3-2 01 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-2 Estimated Street System Improvement Costs - Primary Arterials Faciility "777 EDT l ansW,:115n Cast �1 �f'4�i'ay Cost 'otaX lest" Miles Avenue $639,642 $0 $639,642 Avenue 50 $1,328,500 $0 $1,328,500 Avenue 52 $1,137,840 $0 $1,137,840 Avenue 54 $1,098,240 $0 $1,098,240 Avenue 58 $1,611,840 $0 $1,611,840 Eisenhower Drive $946,960 $0 $946,960 Adams Street $534,000 $0 $534,000 Dune Palms Road $471,700 $0 $471,700 Madison Street $3,284,160 $0 $3,284,160 Monroe Street $704,880 $0 $704,880 TOTAL $11,757,762 $0 $11,757,762 For entirely new bridges, 37% of the City's cost is attributed to existing development and 63% is attributed to future development. That split is based on the shares of a total build out trip generation contributed by existing and future development. For bridge widening projects, the entire cost is attributed to future development because all bridge widening covered by this analysis is required only to serve future development. Table 3-3 Street System Improvements - Bridge Improvements Facility" Estimated";pity host ,New DevIoment Share l�ew Dveloment Cast Avenue 50 at Evacuation Channels $5,733,000 63% $3,611,790 Eisenhower Drive at Evac Channel $630,000 100% $630,000 Avenue 52 at All American Canal $680,000 100% $680,000 Avenue 50 At All American Canal $630,000 50% $315,000 Jefferson Street at WWR Channe14 $6,949,800 63% $4,378,374 TOTAL $14,622,800 $9,615,164 Table 3-4 shows the cost of traffic signals needed to serve future development. As noted in the table, costs for some of those signals will be shared with other jurisdictions. 2 63% of City cost for new bridges attributed to new development based on shares of total build out traffic volume (See Table 2-2 and 2-3) 3 New Bridge 4 New Bridge January, 2002 Page 3-3 2� 042 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study With the exception of the citywide central control system, all of the signals on the list will be needed entirely as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 3-4, 63% of the cost of the citywide central control system is attributed to future development, based on shares of a total build out trip generation contributed by existing and future development. Table 3-4 Street System Improvements - Traffic Signals Washington Street & Sagebrush $175,000 100% $175,000 Washington Street & La Fonda $175,000 100% $1751,000 Jefferson Street & Miles Avenue (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 25% $43,750 Jefferson Street & Westward Ho (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 50% $87,500 Jefferson Street & Avenue 53 $175,000 100% $175,000 Adams Street & Fred Waring Drive $175,000 100% $175,000 Dune Palms Road & Westward Ho (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 75% $131,250 Eisenhower Drive & Calle Tampico $175,000 100% $175,000 Eisenhower Drive & Montezuma $175,000 100% $175,000 Eisenhower Drive & Avenue 52 $175,000 100% $175,000 Avenida Bermudas & Avenue 52 $175,000 100% $175,000 Calle Tampico & Civic Center Way $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison Street & Avenue 50 (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 25% $43,750 Madison Street & Avenue 52 (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 75% $131,250 Madison Street & Avenue 53 $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison Street & Avenue 54 $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison Street & Avenue 58 (Cost shared with County) $175,000 50% $87,500 Madison Street & Avenue 62 (Cost shared with County) $175,000 50% $87,500 Monroe Street & Avenue 53 (Cost shared w/Indio) $175,000 25% $43,750 Monroe Street & Avenue 54 (Cost shared with County) $175,000 50% $87,500 Monroe Street & Airport Blvd (Cost shared with County) $175,000 25% $43,750 Citywide Central Control $500,000 63% $315,000 Development Related Costs $4,175,000 $3,027,500 28 5 January, 2002 Page 3-4 043 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-5 shows the cost of sound attenuation walls expected to be required as a result of future development. The cost of sound walls adjacent to developed property will be included in the impact fee calculations because the City has determined that future development will increase traffic noise levels to a point where sound attenuation will be required. The cost of sound walls for undeveloped property will be handled case -by -case, as part of the development approval process. Table 3-5 Street System Improvements - Sound Attenuation Walls North Avenue 50 at Montero Estates $240,000 $0 East Washington Street at La Quinta Del Oro - Vacant $0 $300,000 East Washington Street - Vacant $0 $260,000 West Washington Street opposite Lake La Quinta - Vacant $0 $520,000 West Washington Street at Laguna de La Paz $310,000 $0 West Washington Street at Montero Estates $400,000 $0 East Washington Street at Sagebrush, Bottlebrush, Saguaro $130,000 $0 East Washington Street North of Avenue 50 - Vacant $0 $120,000 West Washington Street at Jacumba, Iloilo Area $120,000 $0 South Fred Waring Drive at Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $130,000 North Fred Waring Drive at Dutch Parent - Vacant $0 $400,000 West Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $400,000 West Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to South Vista Grande $240,000 $0 East Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to South Vista Grande $160,000 $0 East Jefferson Street - Westward Ho to South Vista Grande $50,000 $0 East Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $930,000 East Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $750,000 West Jefferson Street at Heritage - Vacant $0 $260,000 West Jefferson Street - Vacant $0 $770,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $1,600,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $420,000 South Avenue 52 at Heritage - Vacant $0 $1,620,000 Totals $1,650,000 $8,480,000 5 Costs of walls adjacent to developed property will be included in impact fees. Studies indicate projected development will increase traffic noise to a level requiring attenuation 81 January, 2002 Page 3-5 044 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-6 shows the total cost of development -related capital improvement from Tables 3-1 through 3-5. The overall total in that table will be used as the basis for the impact fee calculation. Table 3-6 Street System Improvements for Future Development - Summary by Type E. IMPACT FEES Table 3-7 shows the calculation of a unit cost per peak hour trip -mile. To establish that unit cost, the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-6 is divided by the projected volume of peak hour trip -miles to be added by new development, from in Table 2-2, Section 2. Table 3-7 Street Svstem Improvements - Cost per Peak Hour Trip -Mile Ttal:lglblextprav+emeiat at Aclded'Peak Hour 3p�tles' Costtlak Hao�r Tipr�ile $ $34,114,666 254,886 133.84 6 See Table 3-6 7 See Table 2-2 8 Improvement cost per peak hour trip = total eligible improvement cost/added peak hour trip miles 287 January, 2002 Page 3-6 ! 't City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-8 shows the conversion of the cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-7 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for each category of development. This conversion is based on the estimated number of peak hour trip -miles per unit of development for each land use category. As discussed in Section 9, Implementation, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per trip, as shown in Table 3-7. Table 3-8 Standardized Impact Fees - Street Improvements The standardized fees shown in Table 3-8 allocate a portion of the cost of future street improvements to future public facilities, schools, and parks, reflecting the fact that those land uses do generate traffic. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, the traffic they generate is also attributable to future private development. To reflect that reality, the costs allocated to public facilities in table 3-9 will be reallocated to private development. All of the costs attributed to schools and parks will be reallocated to residential development, because those facilities serve only residential development. Costs attributed to other public facilities will be reallocated to all development. The method used to redistribute the costs attributed to public facilities is as follows: First calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. To do that, multiply the fee per unit of development from Table 3-8 by the number of units of development shown in Table 2-2. Next, divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip -miles generated by the receiving group of private land use categories. In the case of parks, for example, that would be only the residential category. The resulting cost per peak hour trip mile is then added to the fees shown in Table 3-8 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-9 summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile. See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4 10 See Table 3-7 11 Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip -miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to the nearest dollar 283 January, 2002 Page 3-7 046 City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-9 Adjusted Cost Allocations Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-9 can be substituted for the initial cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-8 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of development. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-10 on the following page. The difference between the initial fees, and adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees in Tables 3-8 and 3-10. 12 See Table 3-7 13 Reallocated Public Facilities cost = 55 KSF of Future Public Facilities x 47.64 Peak Hour Trip Miles per KSF x Initial Allocation of $137.70 per Peak Hour Trip Miles/250,403 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving development = an increase of $1.44 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development 14 Reallocated Schools cost = 0 Acres of Future Schools x 5.2 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $137.70 per Peak Hour Trip Mile / 169,392 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an increase of $0. Per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development 15 Reallocated Parks cost = 103 Acres of Future Parks x 18.09 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $137.70 per Peak Hour Trip Miles/169,392 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development = an increase of $1.51 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving development 16 Adjust cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile = the sum of initial cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile plus the reallocated public facility, school and park costs for each land use category January, 2002 Page 3-8 28 047 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-10 Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees - Street Improvements Laric [Iea#et la tf I"tk Ha''1ri 11ttit:+f Atlluscad +tft"k A�%lultl 1+`+Tttt►f ]1►c el�rpmwuteelpmeint'' you r T>rl bile be�elopaneni :" Residential SFD DU 7.98 $136.79 $1,098 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $136.79 $1,098 Residential MFO DU 4.66 $136.79 $641 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $135.28 $2,116 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $135.28 $1,724 Tourist Commercial ROOM 4.10 $135.28 $558 Public Facilities ACRE 47.64 $0.00 $0 Schools ACRE 5.20 $0.00 $0 Parks ACRE 18.09 $0.00 $0 Golf Courses ACRE 1.50 $135.28 $204 Table 3-11 projects the impact fee revenue that would be realized from future development, if these fees were applied to all development projected in Table 2-2. Table 3-11 Proiected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Lind [ise Category Iait,ofDev. tldjustediF�nit of Devo Future 11�at a>De. Imptct.eRvenue.� Residential SFD DU $1,098 13,691 $15,032,718 Residential SFA DU $1,098 7,276 $7,989,048 Residential MFO DU $641 450 $288,450 Office/Hospital KSF $2,116 1,780 $3,766,480 General Commercial KSF $1,724 3,819 $6,583,956 Tourist Commercial ROOM $558 703 $392,274 Public Facilities ACRE $0 55 $0 Schools ACRE $0 0 $0 Parks ACRE $0 103 $0 Golf Courses ACRE $204 1,341 $273,564 $34,326,490 17 See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4 18 See Table 3-9 19 Fee per unit of development = peak hour trip miles per unit of development x cost per peak hour trip mile. Fees rounded to the nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study. (See Executive Summary) 20 See Table 3-10 21 See Table 2-2 22 Impact Fee Revenue = adjusted fee per unit of development x future units of development January, 2002 Page 3-9 20 ) U48 City of'La Quinta, Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 4 PARKS & RECREATION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for parks required to serve future development in La Quinta. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks, will be acquired by the City from subdividers under the provisions of the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Park impact fees calculated in this section of the report are intended to cover only the cost of park improvements, and will be levied in addition to any land dedication or fee -in -lieu requirements imposed pursuant to the Quimby Act. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific part of the City while community parks serve the entire City. However, some parks in La Quinta serve both functions. As a result, the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a combined level of service standard for neighborhood and community parks. Those fees will be calculated on a citywide basis, and applied to new development in all parts of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate park impact fees does not depend on the timing of development or the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE At present, parks and recreation facilities in La Quinta are provided both by the City, and by the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRPD). Because parks owned by both entities were funded by residents of La Quinta, all existing facilities will be considered in establishing the existing level of service. This study does not distinguish between neighborhood and community parks because only basic park improvements are covered by the impact fees. The City's existing parks include a community sports complex, two developed neighborhood parks, and a mini -park. Fritz Burns Park, which is currently under development, will be treated as a developed park in this analysis because the City has committed funds to complete improvements well beyond the basic park improvements used as the basis for the fees calculated here. Table 4-1 lists La Quinta's existing parks. Not included is 845-acre Lake Cahuilla Regional Park, which is located in La Quinta, but owned by Riverside County. The regional park will not be considered in calculating park impact fees. January, 2002 1Page 4-1 !_ 9 049 City of La Quinta, Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-1 Existing Parks Parr% N... Cove Mini -park Neighborhood 0.3 Village Park' Neighborhood 6.5 Fritz Burns Parke Neighborhood/Community 4.0 Adams Park Neighborhood 3•7 Avenue 50 Sports Complex' Community 18.2 TOTAL 32.7 The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per 1,000 population. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy 5-1.1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of improved neighborhood and community park acreage per thousand residents. However, the level of service calculated during the development of the Development Impact Fees dated May 1999, as shown in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Table 4-2 T,evel of 4ervice - Tmnroved Park Acreage Pala Aclragea M I'+�►ulatiourr, Ofii 1p'apulainn 32.7 29385 1.11 C. DEMAND VARIABLE As indicated above, population is used here as the variable representing the need for parks in La Quinta. Population is almost universally accepted as the proper basis for establishing level -of- service standards for parks, and is used in the Quimby Act, in the City's General Plan, and by the National Recreation and Parks Association. As used in this section, population is defined as the potential population of the City, if all dwelling units were occupied. (See Section 2). 1 Owned by Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District 2 Land owned by City. Partly Developed. Funds budgeted for completion 3 Land owned jointly with the Desert Sands Unified School District. Development costs funded by the City 4 See Table 4-1 5 Population figures used in this study are based on 100% occupancy of all existing dwelling units January, 2002 Page 4-2 2� 0 50 City of La Quinta, Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION In this study, the need for park improvements is defined in terms of park acreage per capita as discussed above. The cost for required park facilities is established on a per capita basis, and park impact fees per dwelling unit are based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit for each category of residential development. No park impact fees will be charged to nonresidential development. The average cost of basic park improvements for Fritz Burns Park and Adams Park was $123,333 per acre. Based upon a review of recent construction bids for Park construction in the region, an estimated cost of $150,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. It should be noted that the estimated cost used in this analysis covers only basic park improvement such as landscaping and irrigation, picnic facilities and playgrounds. It does not include the cost of facilities such as tennis courts or swimming pools, which would have to be funded from other sources. E. IMPACT FEES Table 4-3 shows the calculation of the cost per capita for park improvements described above, using the level of service standard previously described. Table 4-3 Park Improvements - Cost per Capita Table 4-4 shows the conversion of the cost per capita from Table 4-3 into standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for the three categories of residential development. This conversion is provided for administrative convenience. However, for reasons explained in Section 10 (Implementation) we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita shown in Table 4-3. 6 Cost estimate by City of La Quinta Public Works Department for improvements only 7 See Table 4-2 8 See Table 2-2 January, 2002 Page 4-3 nn 2�JLo City of La Quinta, Development Impact Fee Study Table 4-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park Improvements Table 4-5 projects total revenue from the park impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for park improvements. Table 4-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Laa+d Useatego Uaits cif Ievelptnt' Feeluit 'utu'+ Unity o Lnpacf'ee �evel�pme�t'� L1�v�lopment" ,. Residential SFD DU $502 13,691 $6,872,882 Residential SFA DU $352 7,276 $2,561,152 Residential MFO DU $460 450 $207,000 Office/Hospital KSF 1,780 $0 General Commercial KSF 3,819 $0 Tourist Commercial Room 703 $0 Public Facilities Acre 55 $0 Schools Acre 0 $0 Parks Acre 103 $0 Golf Courses Acre 1,341 $0 $9,641,034 9 See Table 2-1, Note 2 10 See Table 4-3 11 Fee per Unit of Development = Demand per Unit x Development x Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary) 12 See Table 4-4 13 See Table 2-2 14 Impact fee revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development January, 2002 Page 4-4 2 9 `1 City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 5 CIVIC CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for the La Quinta civic center. The existing civic center was completed in 1993. It has adequate space to serve a portion of the City's anticipated growth, but expansion will be required prior to build out. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The civic center has a citywide service area, so the impact fees for that facility will be calculated on a citywide basis. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For facilities of the type addressed in this section, level of service standards is generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without formally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based on specific existing and proposed facilities, and will be discussed in more detail later in this section. C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or at least correlate with, the need for additional capital improvements. For facilities such as water and sewer systems, service usage can be physically measured and attributed to specific types of development. However, the relationship between development and the need for civic center facilities is complex and, in some cases, indirect. It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities in any city generally increases as the city grows. Nevertheless, the relationship between specific types of development and the need for administrative facilities is difficult to quantify. In La Quinta, the civic center houses staff from all City departments. Given the multiplicity of services supported by the civic center, and the indirect relationship between development and the demand for some of those services, no single attribute of development neatly represents the effect of development on space needs in that facility. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to use a generalized measure of development to approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees. 290 January, 2002 Page 5-1 053 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-1 Developed Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities) Acreage is the most general measure of development, and is applicable to all types of development, and developed acreage will be used here as the demand variable in analyzing impact fees for the Civic Center. If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for Civic Center facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. In Table 5-1, acreage devoted to those uses is excluded from the cost allocation in this section, because those public uses do not create a demand for the services supported by the Civic Center facilities. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The existing La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contains 33,000 square feet of gross floor area. That existing space is adequate to serve the City's current needs. The original building plans call for the addition of 15,000 square feet in the future. The resulting 48,000 square foot building is expected to serve the City's needs well into the future. Although additional facilities may be needed prior to build out, this study makes the conservative assumption that the existing civic center and the proposed expansion will serve the City's needs to build out. Because the civic center serves both existing and future development, the costs of the entire facility will be allocated on the same basis to both existing and future development. Credit will be given in the analysis for nonimpact fee contributions to the cost of the facility. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is developed acreage. Table 5-1 tabulates developed acreage for existing and future development, using data from Section 2. As indicated in Table 5-1, future development accounts for 63.1% of total developed acreage at build out. Consequently, 63.1 % of eligible civic center costs will be assigned to future development in this analysis. See Table 2-1 See Table 2-2 See Table 2-3 January, 2002 Page 5-2 05 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-2 shows the total cost of the existing civic center, which is defined in this analysis as the sum of past and future cash outlays, plus the present value of future debt service payments on bonds used to finance construction. The present value calculation discounts all expenditures for inflation at an assumed 3.5% annual rate, resulting in an effective real interest rate of approximately 3% per year on outstanding debt. The share of civic center costs, including debt service, paid by the redevelopment agency (RDA 30%) and by future general fund contributions (40%) is not included in the future fund needs for impact fee calculations. The cost of a future civic center expansion is estimated on a square footage basis in current dollars. The future funds needed for the Civic Center debt service attributable to the Development Impact Fee (30%) have not been discounted because the intent is to construct the Civic Center expansion with RDA funds before all Civic Center funds are collected. The Civic Center DIF collected would then be used to pay debt service on the existing bonds and repay the RDA for the expansion. No interest costs have been added to the DIF for this RDA advance. Table 5-2 Civic Center Costs ystoane>rtlt1, MTtt „'uturul Deeds Civic Center (Revenue Bonds)4 $11,382,746 $3,646,495 Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outlays) $4,856,788 Civic Center (General Fund cash outlays) $1,407,182 Future Civic Center Expansions $3,600,000 $3,600,000 Total $21,246,716 $7,246,495 Future Development Share 6$13,406,678 $7,246,495 Table 5-2 summarizes civic center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future. Typically, costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees would be based on the percentage of total cost attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that development. That amount is also shown in Table 5-2. However, since the equitable share of costs attributable to future development exceeds the amount remaining to be funded in the future, the City has chosen to use the lesser amount as the basis for calculating impact fees. Based on present value of debt service payments for the 1991 and the subsequent 1996 Refunding Bond, discounted for inflation at 3.5% per year Assumes a total project cost of $240 per square foot Based on 63.1% share of total eligible cost. See Table 5-1 January, 2002 Page 5-3 055 City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study E. IMPACT FEES Table 5-3 shows the civic center future funding needs, from Table 5-2, divided by the developed acreage of future development to establish the average cost per developed acre. Table 5-3 Civic Center Cost Allocation Future Ivelupment host Sbaredde Developeat Acres Cost gar tvexap►ecl �►cre $7,246,4957 6,552' $1,106 Table 5-4, on the next page, shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized impact fees per unit of development for various land use categories. Table 5-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Civic Center 7 See Table 5-2 8 See Table 5-1 9 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developed acreage is assumed to = 5% of total acreage 10 See Table 5-3 11 Cost for Category = Future Development Acres x Cost per Developed Acre. This column represents the total cost allocated to each land use category 12 See Table 2-2 13 Fee or unit of develo ment = cost for category/future units of Development Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these January, 2002 p P fees have been increased by factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study. (See Executive Summary) ? (� Page 5-4 J City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 5-5 projects total revenue from the impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for Civic Center improvements. Table 5-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development ` 14ra1� Ct>tegary. ,'�%iY•i�+�.14t1'►1 p r R11 Residential SFD DU $366 13,691 $5,010,906 Residential SFA DU $229 7,276 $1,666,204 Residential MFO DU $44 450 $19,800 Office/Hospital KSF $54 1,780 $96,120 General Commercial KSF $95 3,819 $362,805 Tourist Commercial Room $74 703 $52,022 Public Facilities Acre $0 187 $0 Schools Acre $0 143 $0 Parks Acre $0 92 $0 Golf Courses Acre $56 1,341 $75,096 $7,282,953 14 See Table 5-4 15 See Table 2-2 03 16 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development c January, 2002 Page 5-5 057 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 6 LIBRAR Y IMPA CT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. Library service in the City is currently provided by the Riverside City -County Library System. Existing libraries serving La Quinta include a leased storefront facility in the City and branch libraries in adjacent communities. The City -County Library System has no plans to construct a library in La Quinta. This study assumes that the City will construct a library to serve its residents, and that any library constructed in La Quinta will have to be funded by the City. It is not clear at this time whether La Quinta will ultimately choose to operate its own library, or make arrangements with the Riverside City -County Library System to operate a library owned by the City, but that decision does not affect the capital costs or the impact fee calculations. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calculated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The Public Facilities element of the La Quinta General Plan includes the following planning standard for libraries: 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.2 volumes, per capita. However, for purposes of establishing impact fees, the City has chosen to use a lower standard of 0.22 square feet of library space per capita, which equates to a 20,000 square foot library to serve the population projected at build out. That standard will be used to establish an impact fee for library buildings in La Quinta. The adopted standard of 1.2 volumes per capita will be used for library materials. It is important to note that the City's existing level of service is lower than the standard used in this analysis. That existing deficiency will be addressed later in this section. C. DEMAND VARIABLES In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Population is the universally accepted basis for defining library facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in allocating the cost of those facilities. January, 2002 Page 6-1 V�� City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 6-1 shows costs for library facilities needed to meet the planning standard defined above for the projected City of La Quinta population at build out. Table 6-1 Library Costs Cas�n�at Quatily Total Calld oat P+opilali G+st ptr �apta Design/Construction 20,000 GSF $4,800,000' 97,310 $49.33 Land 2.0 Acres $261,3602 97,310 $2.69 Materials 110,008 Volumes $2,200,1603 97,310 $22.61 Total $7,261,520 291,930 $74.62 As discussed above, the City does not now have a permanent library facility, and does not, at present, meet the level of service standards used in this analysis. However, the City does have certain capital assets which will be contributed to development of a branch library in the future. By virtue of its contributions to funding of the library system, and by agreement with the Riverside City -County Library System, the City has rights to the collection currently housed in the storefront library in La Quinta. That collection amounts to 27,500 volumes with a replacement value of $550,000. It is generally accepted that a City may not legally charge impact fees to new development to support a level of service higher than the level of service provided to the existing community. Otherwise, fees charged to new development could result in a subsidy to existing development. Since the impact fees calculated in this section are based on a level of service standard higher than the existing level of service, they can be justified only if the City were to eliminate the existing deficiency relative to the proposed service standard. The cost of doing so would have to be paid with funds other than impact fees. The total cost to bring the current level of service up to the proposed standard would be approximately $3,453,654 based on the per capita costs in Table 6-1 and the existing population shown in Table 2-1. Against that cost, the City can claim credit for the aforementioned library materials with a value of $550,000. The remaining unfunded cost of $2,903,654 in current dollars would have to be paid from nonimpact fee sources. The impact fees calculated in this section assume that the City will contribute, from non - development -related fund sources, the additional capital necessary to raise the current level of service to the proposed service standard. Based on total project cost of $240 per square foot provided by the City's Architect Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot Based on average cost of $20.00 per volume January, 2002 -- Page 6-2 3�� . 059 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study E. IMPACT FEES Table 6-2 converts the per capita costs in Table 6-1 to impact fees per unit of development. Because population is used as the demand variable in this case, library impact fees apply only to residential development. Table 6-2 Standardized Impact Fees — Libraries Table 6-3 projects total revenue from the library impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for library improvements through build out, at the recommended fee levels. Table 6-3 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development i if :ll .• Residential SFD DU $225 13,691 $3,080,475 Residential SFA DU $158 7,276 $1,149,608 Residential MFO DU $206 450 $92,700 Office/Hospital KSF $0 1,780 $0 General Commercial KSF $0 3,819 $0 Tourist Commercial Room $0 703 $0 Public Facilities Acre $0 55 $0 Schools Acre $0 0 $0 Parks Acre $0 103 $0 Golf Courses Acre $0 1,341 $0 $4,322,783 4 See Table 2-1, Note 2 5 See Table 6-1 6 Fee per unit of development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary) See Table 6-2 8 See Table 2-2 9 Impact Fee Revenue = impact fee per unit of development x future units of development January, 2002 Page 6-3 3 0, 060 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 7 COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for community center facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. The City has one existing community center facility, the multipurpose room at the La Quinta Senior Center. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so impact fees will be calculated for the City as a whole. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The City has not adopted a level of service standard for community center facilities. In this analysis, the current ratio of community center building area to population will be used as the level of service standard. In other words, the level of service used in computing impact fees for future development will be identical to the current level of service for existing development. The existing ratio of facilities to population is shown in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Existing Level of Service - Community Center Facilities C. DEMAND VARIABLE Population is used here to define the relationship between development and facility needs, and will be used as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for community center facilities. Based on multi -purpose room of La Quinta Senior Center 2 See Table 2-1 January, 2002 Page 7-1 ,3 :) 3 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Table 7-2 shows the cost per capita for community center facilities needed to meet the level of service defined in Table 7-1. All amounts are in current dollars. Table 7-2 Communitv Center Facilities - Cost Der Cauita host Folt Sq�ret era lta Cost er Ca P. .. P $2403 0.1344 $32.02 E. IMPACT FEES Table 7-3 converts the per capita costs in Table 7-2 to impact fees per unit of development. Because population is used as the demand variable in this case, impact fees apply only to residential development. Table 7-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Community Center Facilities 3 Cost provided by Department of Building and Safety 4 See Table 7-1 5 See Table 2-1, Note 2 6 See Table 7-2 7 Fee per unit of development = population per unit of development x cost per capita. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary) January, 2002 Page 7-2 394 406 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 7-4 projects total revenue from the community center impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for community center improvements. Table 7-4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development I�aaptd Dseao� Illt aaDe�v« , Feellt of Dever$: Dallis o lv Impt� " �e�eaaue�� Residential SFD DU $97 13,691 $1,328,027 Residential SFA DU $68 7,276 $494,768 Residential MFO DU $89 450 $40,050 Office/Hospital KSF $0 1,780 $0 General Commercial KSF $0 3,819 $0 Tourist Commercial Room $0 703 $0 Public Facilities Acre $0 55 $0 Schools Acre $0 0 $0 Parks Acre $0 103 $0 Golf Courses Acre $0 1,341 $0 $1,862,845 8 See Table 7-3 9 See Table 2-2 io Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of Development x future units of development January, 2002 Page 7-3 30 �.. u,;< 063 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 8 MAINTENANCE FA CILITY IMPA CT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. At present, the City's corporation yard is at capacity. It is meeting existing needs, but will require expansion in stages as the City grows. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section have a citywide service area, so La Quinta will be considered a single benefit area in assessing impact fees for those facilities. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE For the types of facilities addressed in this section, level of service standards is generally implied rather than explicit. That is, decisions are typically made to build required facilities without formally adopting a standard. Because existing facilities are just adequate to meet the City's current needs, the existing level of service, that is, the relationship between existing development and the City's investment in current facilities, will be used as the basis for calculating impact fees for maintenance facilities. C. DEMAND VARIABLES In calculating impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. The City corporation yard includes facilities for parking and maintaining vehicles and equipment employed in street and park maintenance operations. The Public Works Department estimates that street maintenance account for 80% of those facility needs. Facility costs related to street maintenance will be allocated using the same variable applied to street improvements --that is, peak hour trip -miles. The remaining 20% of facility costs, which support park maintenance, will be allocated in the same manner as park facility costs, using population as the demand variable. D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION The Replacement cost for existing corporation yard facilities, vehicles, and maintenance equipment, as estimated by the Public Works department is shown in Table 8-1. Costs are broken down to distinguish street maintenance facilities and equipment from park maintenance facilities and equipment. All costs are given in current dollars. January, 2002 Page 8-1 3 j3 064 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-1 Corporation Yard Existing Facility Costs Cost C�aimpaner # ,Qu utity Unit Copt' . Tvt l Site 65,340 SF $0.44 $28,750 Paving 21,800 SF $2.50 $54,500 Outdoor Storage 10,000 SF $5.31 $53,100 Office 500 SF $100.00 $50,000 Garage 500 SF $80.00 $40,000 Long Term Storage 1,000 SF $75.00 $75,000 Vehicle Wash 300 SF $20.00 $6,000 TOTAL $307,350 The City's current investment per unit of demand for street and park maintenance facilities will be applied to future development to calculate impact fees for those facilities. That is, the costs from Table 8-1 will be divided by the existing demand and the resulting unit cost will be used as the basis for the impact fees. The current cost per unit of demand, for each facility type is calculated in Table 8-2. All amounts are current dollars. Table 8-2 Costs per Unit of Demand - Street and Park Maintenance Facilities 1 Public Works Department estimate 2 Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80% of facilities are used for street maintenance and 20% for park maintenance 3 See Table 2-1. Demand for street improvements is stated in terms of peak hour trip miles. Parks, schools, and other public facilities are not included in this analysis because demand created by those uses is ultimately attributable to the private development served by those uses 4 See Table 2-1. Demand for park is stated in term of population January, 2002 Page 8-2 l 0U 06D City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study E. IMPACT FEES Tables 8-3 and 8-4 convert the costs per unit of demand from Table 8-2 into impact fees per unit of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively. Table 8-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Street Maintenance Facilities Lncl Use Type ilnits of Y.4 of Cost�nt +f Fe+[7ait ol'. levtpm+ett}.+ ICJ Ievelaprriei# Residential SFD DU 7.98 $1.81 $15 Residential SFA DU 7.98 $1.81 $15 Residential MFO DU 4.66 $1.81 $8 Office/Hospital KSF 15.56 $1.81 $28 General Commercial KSF 12.68 $1.81 $23 Tourist Commercial Room 4.10 $1.81 $7 Public Facilities Acre 47.64 N/A $0 Schools Acre 5.20 N/A $0 Parks Acre 18.09 N/A $0 Golf Courses Acre 1.50 $1.81 $3 January, 2002 Demand is measured by peak hour trip miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 3 and 4 See Table 8-2 Fee per unit of development = demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary) Page 8-3 300 06 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 8-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Park Maintenance Facilities Table 8-5 projects total revenue from the street and park maintenance impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for maintenance facilities. Table 8-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development Lalcl Catec►� ; , 7luts of e, el b Ftuenlf Dev. rrxpact' Rvenu';3D Residential SFD DU $20 13,691 $273,820 Residential SFA DU $18 7,276 $130,968 Residential MFO DU $12 450 $5,400 Office/Hospital KSF $28 1,780 $49,840 General Commercial KSF $23 3,819 $87,837 Tourist Commercial Room $7 703 $4,921 Public Facilities Acre $0 55 $0 Schools Acre $0 0 $0 Parks Acre $0 103 $0 Golf Courses Acre $3 1,341 $4,023 $556,809 8 Demand is measured by population per unit of development. See Table 2-1, Note 2 9 See Table 8-2 10 Fee per unit of development = demand units per unit of development x cost per unit of demand. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary) 11 Combined fee per unit of development = sums of street and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-3 and 8-4 12 See Table 2-2 13 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development January, 2002 Page 8-4 303 067 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 9 FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES This section addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities required to serve future development in La Quinta. Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Two fire stations exist in La Quinta at present. Another station will be required to serve development in the northern portion of the City, and one existing station need to be expanded because it is too small to meet future urban fire protection needs. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide the first response to emergency calls, all fire protection facilities operate as part of an integrated citywide system. The resources of the entire system are needed to provide adequate fire protection in any part of the City. Thus, it makes sense to treat the entire City as a single service area for purposes of calculating fire protection impact fees. That approach is further supported by the fact that calculating separate impact fees for individual fire station service areas may well impose significantly different charges on similar development projects in different parts of the City for essentially the same level of service. This analysis will allocate costs for fire protection facilities citywide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. The time frame for this analysis is from the present through build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service for fire protection is typically defined in terms of maximum response times. Response times, in turn, depend largely on the maximum distance that must be traveled in responding to an emergency call, and that distance is determined by the size of the area covered by a particular fire station. For purposes of this analysis, level of service must be translated into facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times is typically determined by an analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of fire stations needed to serve La Quinta at build out has been determined by the City, and will be used as the basis for the impact fee analysis. January, 2002 Page 9-1 3 1- 0 068 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study C. DEMAND VARIABLE In order to calculate impact fees, it is necessary to specify formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In those formulas, demand variables are used to represent the effect of various types of development on the need for a particular type of facility. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development which drive, or correlate with, the need for facilities. As indicated in the level -of -service discussion, above, the most important factor in determining how many fire stations are required to serve an area, given a certain response time standard, is the size of the area served. For that reason, developed acreage will be used as the demand variable for allocating fire station costs. Table 9-1 Developed Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities) De4,1 Residential, SFD 2,772 4,504 7,276 Residential, SFA 651 1,501 2,152 Residential, MFO 86 18 104 Office (Including Hospitals) 15 87 102 General Commercial 120 328 448 Tourist Commercial 65 47 112 Golf Courses (5% of total 117 67 184 acreage) Total 3,826 6,552 10,378 If all future developed acreage were included in the cost allocation formula, a portion of the cost for fire station facilities would be allocated to parks, schools, and other public facilities. However, since those public facilities will be constructed to serve future private development, their fire protection needs are also attributable, though indirectly, to future private development. To reflect that reality, the future acreage devoted to those uses will not be included in the cost allocation, which means that none of the costs for added fire station facilities will be allocated to those uses. In the case of golf courses, only the portion of course acreage devoted to the clubhouse and related facilities will be considered developed for purposes of this analysis. The City estimates that portion to be 5% of total acreage. See Table 9-1 for a breakdown of developed acreages used in this section. See Table 2-1 2 See Table 2-2 3 See Table 2-3 January, 2002 Page 9-2 1. 069 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION Two fire stations operate in the City of La Quinta, at present. One city -owned station was paid for by a major developer. The other station, owned by Riverside County, is functionally inadequate to serve the added development expected in La Quinta, and will need to be expanded or replaced in the future. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume the stations will be expanded. Based on running distance and projected response times, the City also plans for one additional fire station to serve the northern portion of the City. Thus, one additional fire station and an expansion of the existing County -owned fire station, will be required to provide adequate coverage for the City at build out. The existing County -owned station is 5,000 square feet in size. According to Riverside County Fire Department standards, it should be 8,500 square feet. The costs used in calculating impact fees will include the cost of a 3,500 square foot expansion. As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating civic center costs is developed acreage, excluding acreage devoted to schools, parks, and other public facilities. This same methodology will be utilized for the future fire facilities. Table 9-1 tabulates developed acreage for future development, using data from Section 2. In this analysis, the cost of future fire protection facilities is being allocated to future development. Table 9-2 Future Fire Station Costs E. IMPACT FEES In Table 9-2, the estimated cost for future fire stations is divided by the total acreage available for future development. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees for fire protection facilities. Table B-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of development. See Table 2-2. Does not include Public Facilities, Schools, Parks, and 95% of Golf Course Acreage. Estimated cost includes land, site development, design, construction, and the cost of a new engine. Costs in current dollars. Estimated cost of addition = 3,500 sq ft x $240.00 per sq ft for design, construction, and site development. Costs in current dollars. January, 2002 Page 9-3 31 �.� 0 i 0 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 9-3 Standardized Impact Fees - Fire Protection Facilities Land Ilse Type Iini+I �►e�reIClnit �fliv.' stlire Feeoit cti I#er�. Residential SFD DU 0.30 $323.26 $97 Residential SFA DU 0.24 $323.26 $78 Residential MFO DU 0.10 $323.26 $32 Office/Hospital KSF 0.18 $323.26 $58 General Commercial KSF 0.10 $323.26 $32 Tourist Commercial Room 0.13 $323.26 $42 Golf Courses Acre 0.05 $323.26 $16 Table 9-4 projects total revenue from the fire impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars, that would be collected from future development to pay for fire protection improvements. The total revenue projected in Table 9-4 is approximately 3% more than the total cost of future fire station's improvements, as estimated in Table 9-2. This is due to rounding the fees to the next whole dollar. See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit = total acres/total units for each land use type. See Table 9-1. Fee per Unit of Development = Acres per Unit of Development x Cost per Acres. Fees rounded to nearest dollar. Note that these fees have been increased by a factor of 0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Summary). January, 2002 Page 9-4 31 =-N 07.1 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Table 9-4 Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development �e+d � D mr"+ ll+e�renue' Residential SFD DU $97 13,691 $1,328,027 Residential SFA DU $78 7,276 $567,528 Residential MFO DU $32 450 $14,400 Office/Hospital KSF $58 1,780 $103,240 General Commercial KSF $32 3,819 $122,208 Tourist Commercial Room $42 703 $29,526 Public Facilities Acre $0 55 $0 Schools Acre $0 0 $0 Parks Acre $0 103 $0 Golf Courses Acre $16 1,341 $21,456 $2,186,385 F. PROJECTED REVENUE Table 9-5 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now through build out, including the fire impact fees. Table 9-5 shows the total projected revenue if all fees, including fire impact fees are adopted as recommended and if all development anticipated in this report actually occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars. Table 9-5 can be compared with Table S-2, in the Executive Summary, which does not include impact fees for fire protection. Table 9-5 Projected Impact Fee Revenue Facitty Type I'eete leven+� 'W Transportation $34,326,490 Parks $9,641,034 Civic Center $7,282,953 Fire Stations $2,186,385 Libraries $4,322,783 Community Centers $1,862,845 Street and Park Maintenance $556,809 Total $60,179,299 10 See Table 9-3. 11 See Table 2-2. 12 Impact Fee Revenue = Impact Fee per unit of development x future units of development 13 Project Revenue in current dollars. January, 2002 Page 9-5 31 v lJ r> � ' 7 1. City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 10 IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a development impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. A. ADOPTION Typically, it is desirable that specific fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. For reasons discussed below, we also recommend that each impact fee be adopted as a charge per unit of service, rather than as schedule of fees per unit of development. Thus, an impact fee for street improvements would be adopted as a charge per peak hour trip -mile, rather than as a flat fee per dwelling unit or other unit of development. Additional discussion of this point is presented under Administration, below. B. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the Government Code. Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are calculated initially in terms of a cost per unit of service, and then converted into fees per unit of development. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to represent demand for various types of public facilities. To apply impact fees to a development project, it is necessary to estimate how many units of service are required by that project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by builders and developers, it is useful to convert impact fee rates into standardized fees for common units of development--e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial development. All impact fee rates calculated in this study have been converted to standardized fees per unit of development for the land use categories defined in this study. However, as indicated above, we recommend that adopting the impact fees state the amount of the fees in terms of service units (e.g., dollars per peak hour trip -mile) instead of, or in addition to, adopting a schedule of fees per unit of development (e.g., dollars per Single Family Dwelling Unit). Adopting fees in terms of service units provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a development project has demand characteristics that vary significantly from the norms used to characterize the land use categories in this report. January, 2002 Page 10-1 315- 073 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study It should be also noted that some commercial and industrial buildings are not designed for a specific type of tenant and their use can change over time. For such uses, we believe that the City is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for the appropriate categories of development. The fact that the initial user of a new building may have below average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly low demand. Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or imposes a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1 through 3b, below. When imposing such a fee on a specific project, the City must also make a finding relative to item 3c. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document. This study is intended to be used as a public document to satisfy that requirement. In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, " ... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this report, the specific improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. January, 2002 Page 10-2 310 0711 City of'La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions do not apply to nonresidential development. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged to that project, the impact fee imposed on that development project for that type of facility should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the credit would exceed the amount of the fee imposed on the development for that type of facility, the City may choose to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer under which the excess credit would be repaid from future impact fees charged to other developers for the same type of facility. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facility's account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. We recommend that fees be deposited in accounts established for each type of facility addressed in this report. Loans to the DIF Program. In order to accelerate the construction of projects set forth in the Development Impact Fee Program it may be necessary to loan funds from either the City's Redevelopment Agency or from other City funds to supplement anticipated DIF revenue shortfalls in the early years of the program. These loans will be paid back to the RDA or City as Development Impact Fees become available. Interest on these loans may be charged at a rate based upon the quarterly average interest rate earned by the City's investment pool. January, 2002 Page 10-3 37 1 0''l City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: The amount of the fee The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund The amount of fees collected and interest earned Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement A description of each inter fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f) That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees were required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five years, or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways. January, 2002 Page 10-4 31 076, City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: ■ Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put ■ Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged ■ Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in the statute. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, u#dating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development applications. Annual Update of Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities not covered by the City's CIP, we recommend that this report serve as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. If that practice is followed, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002. January, 2002 Page 10-5 31 i�` 017 City of La Quinta - Development Impact Fee Study Annual Update of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in current dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The Engineering News Record Los Angeles Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation. C. TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are involved in fee -related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made clear. Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in this report are tied to specific project lists and related cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended. January, 2002 Page 10-6 "W) 078 APPENDIX A DETAILED COST ESTIMATES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS 3 079 MAJOR ARTERIALS MARCH 2O01 HIGHWAY 111 Adams Street to 600' East of Depot Drive 4 $197 4,500 $886,500 600' East of Depot Drive to Jefferson Street 6 $98 850 $83,300 TOTAL HIGHWAY 111 $969,800 WASHINGTON STREET Fred Waring Drive to 1100' South 6 $98 3,500 $343,000 Highway 111 to Avenue 47 5 $226 2,650 $598,900 Avenue 48 to Sagebrush 4 $197 3,880 $764,360 Sagebrush to Avenue 50 4 $197 1,400 $275,800 Sagebrush to 100' South of Saguaro 8 $33 660 $21,780 TOTAL WASHINGTON STREET $290039840 JEFFERSON STREET North City Limits to Miles Avenue 7A $93 2,650 $246,450 Miles Avenue to Westward Ho' N/A $0 0 $0 Westward Ho to Whitewater4 3 $70 2,100 $36,750 TOTAL JEFFERSON STREET $283,200 AVENUE 52 Calle Rondo to Jefferson Street 3 $70 7,000 $490,000 TOTAL AVENUE 52 $490,000 FRED WARING DRIVE Washington Street to Jefferson Streets 4 $197 10,560 $1,720,280 TOTAL FRED WARING DRIVE $1,720,280 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS $59467,120 1 See Table M-1 2 Street portion shared by CVAG 3 In the City of Indio 4 Street portion shared 75% by CVAG 5 Total cost is reduced due to bonds being held for some of the work: $2,080,320 minus $360,040 3 080 TABLE M-1 OPTION 1 (All Improvements to be put in tpu Uat '; +u#ty. Uitrt Tatal Clear and Grub SF 66.00 $0.25 $16.50 Landscape SF 18.00 $6.00 $108.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 1.19 $20.00 $23.80 A.C. Tons 1.26 $35.00 $44.10 Fabric SY 1.78 $1.00 $1.78 Striping SF 48.00 $0.10 $4.80 Engineering 218.98 10% $21.90 Inspection, Testing, Survey 218.98 7.75% $16.97 Administration 257.85 5% $12.89 Contingency 270.74 20% $54.15 TOTAL COST/FT $324.89 OPTION 2 (Remaining 2 lanes and landscape De�criptan .. � Vniti ttantty Uait �pst Total Clear and Grub SF 42.00 $0.25 $10.50 Landscape SF 18.00 $6.00 $108.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.59 $20.00 $11.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 $35.00 $22.05 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 $0.10 $2.40 Engineering 175.64 10% $17.56 Inspection, Testing, Survey 175.64 7.75% $13.61 Administration 206.82 5% $10.34 Contingency 217.16 20% $43.43 TOTAL COST/FT $260.59 OPTION 3 (Remaining 2 lanes onl Descripion 11nit,;ua►t Unit Cost Total Clear and Grub SF 42.00 $0.25 $10.50 A.B. CY 0.59 $20.00 $11.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 $35.00 $22.05 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 $0.10 $2.40 Engineering 47.64 10% $4.76 Inspection, Testing, Survey 47.64 7.% $3.33 Administration 55.74 5% $2.79 Contingency 58.53 -r 20% $11.71 TOTAL COST/FT $70.23 3 �� .J� OPTION 4 (Median and Landscape Desctrpilu�a rit' uaxrt UWI +si IaI Clear and Grub SF 18.00 $0.25 $4.50 Landscape SF 18.00 $6.00 $108.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 Engineering 132.50 10% $13.25 Inspection, Testing, Survey 132.50 7.75% $10.27 Administration 156.02 5% $7.80 Contingency 163.82 20% $32.76 TOTAL COST/FT $196.58 OPTION 5 (Remaining 1 Lane and Landscape cI�c►n . I Tait u at..7nilt Clear and Grub SF 21.00 $0.25 $5.25 Landscape SF 18.00 $6.00 $108.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.30 $20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $11.20 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 152.54 10% $15.25 Inspection, Testing, Survey 152.54 7.75% $11.82 Administration 179.62 5% $8.98 Contingency F 188.60 20% $37.72 TOTAL COST/FT $226.32 OPTION 6 (1/2 Median and Landscape I�ecan ;1n�t tuannt 11nit►st'ola Clear and Grub SF 9.00 $0.25 $2.25 Landscape SF 9.00 $6.00 $54.00 Median Curb LF 1.00 $10.00 $10.00 Engineering 66.25 10% $6.63 Inspection, Testing, Survey 66.25 7.75% $5.13 Administration 78.01 5% $3.90 Contingency 81.91 20% $16.3 8 TOTAL COST/FT $98.29 12) 082 OPTION 7 (1 Lane, V2 Landscape and Median Ilescri t +� Quantity Iir i �'0 Tote Clear and Grub SF 21.00 $0.25 $5.25 Landscape SF 9.00 $6.00 $54.00 Median Curb LF 1.00 $10.00 $10.00 A.B. CY 0.30 $20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $11.20 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 88.54 10% $8.85 Inspection, Testing, Survey 88.54 7.75% $6.86 Administration 104.26 5% $5.21 Contingency 109.47 20% $21.89 TOTAL COST/FT $131.36 OPTION 7A (1 Lane, %2 Landscape and Median) CVAG is funding 75% of Road Costs from Measure A i}escritnn I1it t�ntt I1it'►ta:. Clear and Grub SF 21.00 $0.25 $1.31 Landscape SF 9.00 $6.00 $54.00 Median Curb LF 1.00 $10.00 $2.50 A.B. CY 0.30 $20.00 $1.50 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $2.80 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.22 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $0.30 Engineering 88.54 10% $6.26 Inspection, Testing, Survey 88.54 7.75% $4.85 Administration 104.26 5% $3.69 Contingency 109.47 20% $15.49 TOTAL COST/FT $92.93 OPTION 8 (Remaining 1 Lane escripo fit ....... X J7t Co `nta. Clear and Grub SF 12.00 $0.25 $3.00 A.B. CY 0.30 $20.00 $6.00 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $11.20 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 22.29 10% $2.23 Inspection, Testing, Survey 22.29 7.% $1.56 Administration 26.08 5% $1.30 Contingency 27.38 20% $5.48 TOTAL COST/FT $32.86 083 PRIMARY ARTERIALS MARCH 2O01 MILES AVENUE Seeley to Dune Palms Road 13 $178 4,250 $404,682 Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street3 15 $89 2,640 $234,960 TOTAL MILES AVENUE $639,642 AVENUE 50 Washington Street to Evacuation Channel 13 $178 1,000 $178,000 Park Avenue to Orchard4 15 $89 2,100 $186,900 Orchard to Jefferson Street 13 $178 2,640 $469,920 Jefferson Street to Madison' 15 $89 5,280 $469,920 1320' West of Madison Street to Madison' 14A $18 1,320 $23,760 TOTAL AVENUE 50 $19328,500 AVENUE 52 Jefferson Street to Madison 13 $178 5,280 $93%840 1320' West of Madison to 660' West of Madison' 14 $33 660 $21,780 660' West of Madison to 1320' Ease of Madison 15 $89 1,980 $176,220 TOTAL AVENUE 52 $1,137,840 AVENUE 54 Jefferson Street to Madison' 0 $0 0 $0 Madison to Monroe 10A $208 5,280 $1,098,240 TOTAL AVENUE 54 $1,0989240 AVENUE 58 Jefferson Street to Madison 10A $208 5,280 $1,098,240 Madison to Monroe' 14A/15 $107 4,800 $513,600 TOTAL AVENUE 58 $1,611,840 I See Table 0-1 2 Cost reduced by existing bonds - $756,500 minus $351,818 3 Half in Indio 4 Have bonds for south side 5 North half in Indio 6 South side already developed 7 North half is already developed 8 I Completed 9 North side only 084 EISENHOWER DRIVE Coachella Drive to Washington Street 13 $178 41000 $7125000 Calle Tampico to Avenue 50 13 $178 1,320 $2345960 TOTAL EISENHOWER DRIVE $9469960 ADAMS STREET Highway 111 to Avenue 48 13 $178 3,000 $534,000 TOTAL ADAMS STREET $534,000 DUNE PALMS ROAD Highway 111 to Avenue 48 13 $178 2,650 $471,700 TOTAL DUNE PAL MS ROAD $4719700 MADISON Avenue 50 to Avenue 52 11A $206 55280 $1,087,680 Avenue 52 to Avenue 54 10 $238 5,280 $15256,640 Half mile north of Avenue 58 to Avenue 58 13 $178 25640 $469,920 Avenue 60 to Avenue 62 15 $89 5,280 $469,920 TOTAL MADISON $3,284,160 MONROE Half mile north of Avenue 54 to Avenue 54 15 $89 25640 $234,960 Avenue 54 to Airport Boulevard 15 $89 5,280 $46%920 TOTAL MONROE $704,880 TOTAL ALL PRIMARY ARTERIALS j $11,757,762 u: 085 k � "twff-A 94 101. OPTION 9 (All Improvements both sides %iSC1t'%iltMldt • . �t lutlt �it'Ot Clear and Grub SF 64.00 $0.25 $16.00 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.89 $20.00 $17.80 A.C. Tons 1.26 $35.00 $44.10 Fabric SY 1.78 $1.00 $1.78 Striping SF 48.00 $0.10 $4.80 Engineering 200.48 10% $20.05 Inspection, Testing, Survey 200.48 7.75% $15.54 Administration 236.07 5% $11.80 Contingency 247.87 20% $49.57 TOTAL COST/FT $297.44 OPTION 10 (2 Lanes and Landscape D�SCi'itlQlini% Q�ranl� . ... CIniI Cyst ` Tota1 Clear and Grub SF 40.00 $0.25 $10.00 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.44 $20.00 $8.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 $35.00 $22.05 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 $0.10 $2.40 Engineering 160.14 10% $16.01 Inspection, Testing, Survey 160.14 7.75% $12.41 Administration 188.56 5% $9.43 Contingency 197.99 20% $39.60 TOTAL COST/FT $237.59 OPTION 10A 2 Lanes and Landscape minus 2" AC and V2 Clear and Grub script on nft nit 1y Tat t 1St T to , Clear and Grub SF 40.00 $0.25 $5.00 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.44 $20.00 $8.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 $35.00 $7.35 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 $0.10 $2.40 Engineering 160.14 10% $14.04 Inspection, Testing, Survey 160.14 7.75% $10.88 Administration 188.56 5% $8.27 Contingency 197.99 20% $34.73 TOTAL COST/FT $208.36 086 OPTION 11 (1 Lane and Landscaue ilecpion €f I11II ��►1°. Clear and Grub SF 20.00 $0.25 $5.00 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.22 $20.00 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $11.20 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 138.69 10% $13.87 Inspection, Testing, Survey 138.69 7.75% $10.75 Administration 163.31 5% $8.17 Contingency 171.47 20% $34.29 TOTAL COST/FT $205.77 OPTION 11A 1 Lane and Landscape minus 2" AC and %z Clear and Grub IIsC"ipiIl11rtti milbS Total.. Clear and Grub SF 20.00 $0.25 $2.50 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 A.B. CY 0.22 $20.00 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $3.74 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 138.69 10% $12.87 Inspection, Testing, Survey 138.69 7.75% $9.98 Administration 163.31 5% $7.58 Contingency 171.47 20% $31.83 TOTAL COST/FT $190.99 OPTION 12 (Remaining 2 Lanes Clear and Grub SF 40.00 $0.25 $10.00 A.B. CY 0.44 $20.00 $8.80 A.C. Tons 0.63 $35.00 $22.05 Fabric SY 0.89 $1.00 $0.89 Striping SF 24.00 $0.10 $2.40 Engineering 44.14 10% $4.41 Inspection, Testing, Survey 44.14 7.% $3.09 Administration 51.64 5% $2.58 Contingency 54.23 20% $10.85 TOTAL COST/FT $65.07 3'.71 087 OPTION 13 (Landscaue Onl Des+�riLrl text 11 tla t i11 go Total : Clear and Grub SF 16.00 $0.25 $4.00 Landscape SF 16.00 $6.00 $96.00 Median Curb LF 2.00 $10.00 $20.00 Engineering 120.00 10% $12.00 Inspection, Testing, Survey 120.00 7.75% $9.30 Administration 141.38 5% $7.07 Contingency 148.37 20% $29.67 TOTAL COST/FT $178.04 OPTION 14 (Remaining 1 Lane 1?ecx�pi+�u Cinil :. loath , :rit Cyst '�+�tal.: Clear and Grub SF 20.00 $0.25 $5.00 A.B. CY 0.22 $20.00 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $11.20 Fabric SY 0.45 $1.00 $0.45 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 22.25 10% $2.23 Inspection, Testing, Survey 22.25 7.% $1.56 Administration 26.03 5% $1.30 Contingency 27.33 20% $5.47 TOTAL COST/FT $32.80 OPTION 14A(Remaining 1 Lane minus 2" AC and % Clear and Grub Iiscriptan - ' Linn unit [lnit C►sI �e�ta. Clear and Grub SF 20.00 $0.25 $2.50 A.B. CY 0.22 $20.00 $4.40 A.C. Tons 0.32 $35.00 $3.73 Fabric SY 0.45 $1.00 $0.45 Striping SF 12.00 $0.10 $1.20 Engineering 22.25 10% $1.23 Inspection, Testing, Survey 22.25 7.75% $0.86 Administration 26.03 5% $0.72 Contingency 27.33 20% $3.02 TOTAL COST/FT $18.11 OPTION 15 (1/2 Median and Landscape �#on tuil `utty Ulfti Cast Tt1 Clear and Grub SF 8.00 $0.25 $2.00 Landscape SF 08.0 $6.00 $48.00 Median Curb LF 1.00 $10.00 $10.00 Engineering 60.00 10% $6.00 Inspection, Testing, Survey 60.00 7.75% $4.65 Administration 70.65 5% $3.53 Contingency 74.18 20% $14.84 TOTAL COST/FT $89.02 3 3 L,089 PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN mrkm SRw. INC. 2700 K CENTRAL SUITE 1000 PHOENIX. Az $cow 3 3 -- 090 Major Arterial' 120• 1 s� q. Primary Arterial 100-11 V 12-18' Secondary Arterial w rt Collector 64-7W It Local Street 0- Cul-De-Sac sa 1 • .3900 QTME DESERT GENERAL PLAN TYPICAL MIDBLOCK ROADWAY CROSS -SECTIONS 8mmar«ua acmaftemp., ' State Highway 111 constitutes a special class of Major Arterial with a right-of-way requirements of 172 feet established by Caltrans. 330 rt 3-17 ,., o 9 91 DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS February 2001 WASHINGTON ST. Washington St. Interchange N/A N/A 0 $ 0 N/A Ave. 50 to Evacuation Channel 12 1,000 12,000 $ 2.75 $ 33,000 East side only Evacuation Channel to Ave. 52 (w/o bridge) 0 0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0 Existing Hwy 111 to Ave. 47 12 2,650 31,800 $ 15.00 $ 477,000 East side only TOTAL WASHINGTON ST. $510,000 JEFFERSON ST. North City Limits to Miles Ave. 12 2,640 31,680 $2.75 $87,120 Westward Ho to Hwy I I I N/A 2,640 N/A N/A $2,000,000 Homes and relocation costs may be required. Cost shared by CVAG TOTAL JEFFERSON ST. $2,087,120 TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS RIGHT OF WAY $2,597,120 33- 092 T:\PWDEPT\DIF 2002\MajorArteria1sR0W.wpd Page I of I BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS February 2001 Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel $5,733,000 63% $3,611,790 Eisenhower Dr. Evacuation Channel $630,000 100% $630,000 Ave. 52 All American Canal $680,000 100% $68000 Ave. 50 All American Canal $630,000 50% $315,000 (share with Indio) Jefferson St. WWR Channel $6,949,800 63% $4,378,374 TOTAL = $9,615,164 093 T:\PWDEPT\DIF 2002\BridgeImpvmts.wpd Page I of I FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNALS DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS February 2001 Washington St. & Sagebrush $175,000 100% $175,000 Washington St. & La Fonda $175,000 100% $175,000 Jefferson St. & Miles Ave. $175,000 25% $43,750 (share with Indio Jefferson St. & Westward Ho $175,000 50% $87,500 (share with Indio) Jefferson St. & Ave. 53 $175,000 100% $175,000 Adams St. & Westward Ho $175,000 100% $175,000 Dune Palms Rd. & Westward Ho $175,000 75% $131,250 (share with Indio) Eisenhower Dr. & Calle Tampico $175,000 100% $175,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Montezuma $175,000 100% $175,000 Eisenhower Dr. & Ave. 52 $175,000 100% $175,000 Ave. Bermudas & Ave. 52 $175,000 100% $175,000 Calle Tampico Civic Center Way $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison St. & Ave. 50 $175,000 25% $43,750 (share with Indio) Madison St. & Ave. 52 $175,000 75% $131,250 (share with Indio Madison St. & Ave. 53 $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison St. & Ave. 54 $175,000 100% $175,000 Madison St. & Ave. 58 $175,000 50% $87,500 (share with County) Madison St. & Ave. 62 $175,000 50% $87,500 (share with County) Monroe St. & Ave. 53 $175,000 25% $43,750 (share with Indio) Monroe St. & Ave. 54 $175,000 50% $87,500 (share with County) Monroe St. & Airport Blvd. $175,000 25% $43,750 (share with County) Citywide Central Control $500,000 63% $315,000 TOTAL = $3,027,500 3 3 �, TAPWDEPT\DIF 2002\TrafficSignals.wpd a9 4 I FUTURE SOUND WALL INVENTORY March 2001 LOCATION DISTANCE ZONING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MAJOR ARTERIALS: North Ave. 50 at Montero Estates 11200 HDR 60,100 East Washington St. at La Quinta Del Oro (Vacant) 1,500 HDR 60,100 East Washington St. (Vacant) 1,300 HDR 60,100 West Washington St. across from Lake La Quinta (Vacant) 2,600 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Laguna de la Paz 1,550 LDR 78,200 West Washington St. at Montero Estates 2,000 LDR 65,100 East Washington St. at Sagebrush, Bottlebrush & Saguaro 650 MDR 65,100 East Washington St. North of Ave. 50 (Vacant) 600 LDR 65,100 West Washington St. at Jacumba, Iloilo Area 600 MDR 52,600 South Fred Waring Dr. at Jefferson St. (Vacant) 650 LDR 35,700 North Fred Waring Dr. at Dutch Parent (Vacant) 2,000 LDR 50,600 West Jefferson St. (Vacant) 2,000 LDR 36,700 West Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 1,200 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 800 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson (Westward Ho to south border of Vista Grande) 250 LDR 45,900 East Jefferson St. (Vacant) 4,650 LDR 47,600 East Jefferson St. (Vacant) 3,750 LDR 42,600 West Jefferson St. at Heritage (Vacant) 1,300 LDR 42,600 West Jefferson St. (Vacant) 3,850 LDR 42,600 South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 8,000 LDR 34,100 PRIMARY ARTFIRIAI-q- South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 2,100 LDR 34,100 South Ave. 52 at Heritage (Vacant) 8,100 LDR 34,100 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Proposed Sound Wall in La Quinta 502650 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Undeveloped (Vacant) Land Proposed Sound Wall 42,400 Estimated Total Linear Feet of Developed Land Proposed Sound Wall 8,250 Estimated Cost ($200.00) per Linear Foot $200.00 Total Estimited Cost of Proposed Future Sound Wall in Developed Areas $19650,000 All development of vacant land will be conditioned to complete a sound attenuation study. If sound attenuation is requirejJ3 i it will be a condition of the new development to provide the sound attenuation at the developers sole cost. Note: 095 ATTACHMENT 2 BASIS FOR NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED The trip generation rates used in this Study were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual "Trip Generation." The sixth edition was used as the primary source and was supplemented by data from the fourth edition. Peak hour trips are identified in the manual in a number of different modes. One mode is known as the average daily trip (ADT) in which each type of land use generates an average daily amount of trips in a 24-hour. period. Another mode is peak hour trips in which analysis has been completed for the morning peak hours (A.M. Peak) which are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the evening peak hours (P.M. Peak) which are 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. A complete analysis indicated that the maximum load of traffic occurs during the P.M. peak hours. For this reason the trip generation rates for the P.M. peak hour were utilized so a nexus could be established based on the time of the highest load on the City's circulation system. In order to provide a more accurate nexus, average trip lengths for each type of land use was utilized in the calculation. The best available information on average trip lengths by land use type is published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication "Traffic Generators." Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La Quinta, it is believed they reasonably represent trip lengths for various types of development. CVAG has completed trip length information for regional facilities; however, they indicate the trip lengths on the regional facility equate to an approximate 1:1 proportionality between residential use and commercial use. Although this may be accurate for the traffic trip lengths on the regional system, a City system with its local street network reacts in a different way. The basis of City development usually includes separate core "village" areas with different levels of commercial to support each separate village. The study completed by SANDAG was established by surveying 1,700 commuters to determine their destination and average trip length. This provided a proportional trip length of commercial to residential at approximately one mile for commercial for every 1.975 miles for residential (1:1.975). The CVAG trip length study indicated a one mile commercial to one mile residential ratio (1:1) . In order to estimate the ratio for trip lengths in the City of La Quinta, a City map was prepared with one mile radius permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1 as the origin. The percent of development remaining was identified in each one mile radius circle radiating out from the origin. Trip lengths for each destination were then scaled. These included destinations of leaving town, food shopping, trips to school, and cross town trips. The estimate for the ratios in La Quinta was one mile for commercial for every 1.667 miles for residential (1:1.667). These numbers are closer to the SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths. 33 T:\PWDEPT\COUNCIL\2002\020305a.wpd �� 09 6 ATTACHMENT 3 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PROPOSED PALM RANCHO INDIAN INDIO TYPE IMPACT FEE DEV FEE DESERT' MIRAGE' WELLS3 $100K house $1,907 $2,405 $1,479 $2,736.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 1,300 sf $150K house $1,907 $2,405 $1,764 $3,320.3 $4,302.30 $1,863 1,700 sf $200K house $1,907 $2,405 $2,089 $4,050.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 2,200 sf $300K house $1,907 $2,405 $2,716 $5,218.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 3,000 sf $500K house $1,907 $2,405 $3,674 $6,678.30 $4,302.30 $1,863 4,000 sf 500,000 sf General $558,500 $937,000 $1,592,960 $1,358,030. $628,030.00 $868,525 Commercial 50 Acres 20,000 sf Office $29500 $45,120 $91,266 $73,142.80 $43,942.80 $49,167 1 Acre 200 Acre Golf Course $40,800 $55,800 $282,428 $124,556 $109,956 $136,206 10,000 sf bld 10 Acre site 100 Room Hotel $54,300 $68,100 $248,482 $113,682 $47,982 $89,732 45,000 sf 10 Acres 20 unit townhouse $31,380 $40,020 $23,606 $45,166 $86,046 $30251 1,200 sf ea $90k/unit 20 unit Apartment $24,020 $29,680 $26,506 $39,326 $86,046 $30,251 Building 1,000 sf ea $2,000,000 Includes TUMF, 1/4 AC lot, Park Improvements, Signals, Drainage (Difference due to drainage fee) Includes TUMF, City Yard, Street Widening, Signals, Bridges & Crossings, Bus Shelters, Median Islands, Bike Paths, Utility Undergrounding, Parks, Public Art, Fire Station, City Hall Expansion 3 Includes TUMF, Citywide Public Improvement Fee, Highway 11 I Circulation Improvement Fee 097 9►"f CV 4 lep Qm&r(A AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: - - -- - - - - - STUDY SESSION: Continued Public Hearing to Certify Environmental 0 Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) and Approve PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Tract Map 30092 Amendment #1, A Request to Subdivide 38.4 Acres into 130 Single Family Lots Located at the Northwest Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street Applicant: Barton Properties, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001-417, Revised); and 2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 30092 Amendment #1, subject to findings and conditions. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: City Council Review On February 5, 2002, the City Council, on a 3-0 vote, continued review of this project to March 5, 2002, to allow the applicant time to consider making design changes to the proposed subdivision map, such as adding curvilineal streets, on -street parking and internal open space (Attachment 1). Since the City Council meeting, staff has met with the applicant's engineer who stated the applicant would discuss his reasons for not making any design changes to the subdivision map at the public hearing. 340 The City Attorney has been notified by the legal counsel of the property owner that the owners do not consent to the processing of this map. The original authorization by the property owners was for a 97-lot subdivision. The current map exceeds that number of parcels. The City Attorney is investigating if the applicant is authorized to proceed. Property History The vacant property, located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, was annexed into the City on November 30, 2001. On July 3, 2001, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved a 97-lot residential subdivision for this property by adoption of Resolutions 2001-91 and 2001-92, allowing typical lot sizes of 1 10' wide by 1 19' long (13,090 square feet) fronting onto private streets with site access occurring on Avenue 58 and emergency only access allowed on Monroe Street (Attachment 2). Project Request This Map Amendment proposes 130 single family lots on private streets measuring 36 feet wide (curb to curb), an increase of 33 lots over the original plan. Typical lot sizes are 70' wide by 121.5' long (8,505 square feet). Project access, via private street connections, occur on Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Attachment 3) . Access gating on Street Lot "J", where it intersects with Monroe Street, is restricted to emergency use only, while Avenue 58 access is for residents and guests. The internal street system design has been revised so that cul-de-sac streets are on the west half of the development while interconnecting through streets serve approximately 70 percent of the proposed lots. Other project changes are the elimination of clubhouse facilities and the relocation of the retention basin to the perimeter of the project (Lot 131). A CVWD well site (Lot 132) and temporary lift station (Lot 49) are sited at two locations on Monroe Street. Parkway Lots "A" through "C" on the tract's south and east boundary are being established for landscaping, meandering sidewalks and a multi -use trail as required by the General Plan Circulation Element and Subdivision Ordinance. Easements for utility improvements are shown on the Map exhibit as well, including 10-foot wide easements on each side of all private streets. Planning Commission Review On January 8, 2002, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolutions 2002-004 and 2002-005, recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092 Amendment #1, subject to findings and conditions (Attachment 4). 3 4 .) Public Notice This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 23, 2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Agency Comments A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The findings necessary to approve this request can be made, and are included in the attached Resolutions. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001-417, Revised); and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map 30092 Amendment #1, subject to findings and conditions; or 2. Do not approve the above Resolutions; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, erm! Corfmianity Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager 3 4 Attachments: 1. February 5, 2002 City Council Minutes (Excerpt) 2. Approved Tract Map Exhibit 3. Proposed Tract Map Exhibit 4. January 8, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) 34 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417, REVISED APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of February, 2002, and 51h day of March, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street, more particularly described as follows: Assessor's Parcel No.: 761-720-020 Southwest 1 /4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11 th day of December, 2001, and 8th day of January, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2002-004 recommending certification to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 3rd day of July, 2001, adopt Resolution 2001-91 certifying Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, a 97-lot single family subdivision with private streets in a RL Zoning District; and WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-417, Revised) and has determined that although the proposed residential development could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to certify said Environmental Assessment: 34 t Resolution No. 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, Amendment #1 Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 2 1 . The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-417. 2. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The City Council has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. G:\EAccResoTM30092#1.wpd 3� Resolution No. 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, Amendment #1 Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 3 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-417 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 51h day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California G:\EAccResoTM30092#1.wpd 3 r� 6 Resolution No. 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for TTM 30092, Amendment #1 Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 4 ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California G:\EAccResoTM30092#1.wpd 347 REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 1. Project Title: TTM 30092 (Barton Properties) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: NW Corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe St. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barton Properties, 11611 San Vicente Blvd., S-605, Los Angeles, CA 90049 (310-826-4658) 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Original application involved development of 97 single family and common lots on 37 acres at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. Application has been modified to include 130 residential lots of about 8,000 square feet each. The application also includes lettered lots for streets, a well, and a retention basin. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant (previously agriculture) South: Across Ave. 58, date palm grove and residential East: Across Monroe St., vacant and scattered residential West: IID Corporate facility 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 1 348 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings UGeology and Soils U Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the proJ'ect have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 0_u� C6 C�! Sig nature ate D CITY OF LA QUINTA Printed ame 343 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 9 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced) . 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. g) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 3 E Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 4 • c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) X X X X K4 X X 1rJ r1 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 3�� • E V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ("Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CRM Tech, 10/19/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report," CRM Tech, 10/18/2000 and Phase 1 Report by A.A.G. dated April 2001.) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) R X X 1*1 X X X *1 X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 35 • c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff. and Sladden Geotechnical Report dated 2-9-2001) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) • X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 0 • Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-59 ff. and Hacker Engineering Drainage Report for TTM 30092) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13 ) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) X X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 3� • X. XI. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff. and Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc. dated 4-4-01) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-157 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) E No X X X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 9 06 3 X111. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, p. 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) 1:1 X X X X X I►� G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 10 3 5 7 • • f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X 1� X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 11 3� • • c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER Analysis. X 11 Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside were used in reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed project. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. City EA 2001-408 covers this site and 240 acres to the north. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992; SCAQMD CEQA Handbook; General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992; Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta; City of La Quinta Municipal Code; "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 18, 2000; "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, October 19, 2000; "Phase 1 Archaeological/Historic Resources Assessment for TTM 3009211, prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, April 2001; "Noise Report #01 106 for TTM 30092," prepared by P.A. Penardi and Assoc., April 4, 2001; "Geotechnical Investigation for TTM 30092," prepared by Sladden Eng., Feb. 9, 200 1 ;"Preliminary Drainage Calc. - TTM 30092," prepared by Hacker Eng., April 13, 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonCklst.WPD 12 3 51L Revised Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-417 for Tentative Tract Map 30092 Introduction This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address changes made to Tentative Tract Map 30092. The original application was reviewed under EA 2001- 417, an environmental assessment to supplement EA 2001-408 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2001-074 and Zone Change 2001-098 (City Council Resolution 2001-34). Since the original approval and environmental review, the applicant has increased the number of residential lots from 97 to 130. II. c) The proposed parcel is not currently under Williamson Act contract. Development of the site will result in the loss of land available for agriculture. Residential subdivisions are being developed to the north of the site and the project area is an isolated parcel. Lands to the south and east continue to be farmed. The loss of this site for agriculture is not expected to be significant based on the conclusion of this assessment and EA 2001-408. III. a), c) & d) Air quality in the Coachella Valley and the City is primarily affected by vehicular emissions. The development of this project could generate up to 1,300 average daily trips'. These trips could generate the following emissions. The Table below also includes the SCACMD thresholds of significance for each potential pollutant. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 co ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 67.15 2.58 13.77 -- 0.29 0.29 Daily Threshold• 550 75 100 150 1 Based on 1,300 trips/day and average trip length of 10.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. ' Operational thresholds provided by Cr ,&r1Mr) fnr assistance in determining the significance of a project. "Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Volume l" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Single Family detached housing (2)0) used. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BartonRevAdd.WPD 1 360 I 1 0 The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The non -attainment status results in potentially significant impacts associated with new development, particularly during the construction of new projects. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. In addition to these standards, SCAQMD suggests mitigation for PM10, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to, minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site, unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. 6. Any piece of land to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of any portion of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an ongoing basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Any portion of the site that is actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix, grass seed or chemical stabilizers. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule - 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second star ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BarionRevAdd.WPD 2 361 0- 0 With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. IV. a) Biological resource analysis has not been performed because the site has been actively used for farm activities and therefore is not likely to be a valuable habitat for native species. The land is not in an area of concern for known sensitive species and is outside the boundary of the Coachella Valley Fringe - toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. The changes associated with the application will not change the potential impacts to biological resources. Impacts from development are not expected to be significant. V. a) & b) Cultural resource surveys were conducted for the subject property. The survey found that no significant resources occur on the site. V. c) The site has been previously assessed for paleontologic resources. The area was within the historic lakebed of ancient Lake Cahuilla, but no vertebrate remains have been located. The mollusks found are abundant in this area, and do not represent a significant resource. As such, the on -site investigation and report found that the impacts on paleontologic resources are less than significant, and that no further analysis of the site is necessary. . VI. a) i) & ii) The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State and is mapped in the Ground Shaking Zone IV. To ensure structures can withstand damage from earthquakes, compliance with the Geotechnical Investigation Report by Sladden Engineering dated February 9, 2001, and any other site specific soil analysis required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits shall be required. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. a) iii) This site may be subject to liquefaction due to groundwater being found within 25 to 30 feet requiring "remedial grading including overexcavation and recompaction." (Sladden Report). The modification of the application does not 2 3 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, October, 2000; Phase 1 Archaeological/Historical Survey, prepared by James Brock, MA, RPA dated April 2001. Paleontolo-ical Resources Assessment Report, prepared by CRM Tech, October 2000. Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track 198-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. These analyses cover 200 of the 280 acres proposed for this project. 36= G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\ Barton RevAdd.WPD 3 affect this potential impact, and requires equivalent mitigation as the previous application. To develop the site, the following mitigation measure -shall be implemented: 1. Grading activities and structure development shall comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Sladden Engineering for TTM 30092 including over -excavation, and other methods known to reduce the potential for liquefaction impacts on residential structures. VIII. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. Development of the site will replace the use of canal water for crop irrigation and may represent a positive impact insofar as water usage may be reduced when agricultural irrigation no longer occurs on the site. The proposed amendment to the project will increase water usage over that previously analyzed. Stormwater generated by development will be retained on -site which will encourage percolation and groundwater recharge. The proposed alteration to the project does not change the City's requirements for on -site retention. Additionally, City Ordinances require water conserving plumbing fixtures and landscaping. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. VIII. c)-e) Site development of buildings and parking areas will create impermeable surfaces creating drainage pattern changes. The project site is located in a C Flood Zone. The project is required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100-year storm on -site. The revised drainage plan, prepared by Hacker Engineering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with Section 13.24.120 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Tract conditions are recommended to ensure compliance assuring the flood control system is less than significant. XI. a) The development of the area will result in increased noise levels, but these are not expected to be significant, given that the ambient noise level is, and will continue to be low. Development on any portion of the site will include landscaping, berms and walls which will further attenuate sound in the area as required by Noise Impact Report prepared by P.A. Penardi and Associates dated April 4, 2001. Amendment of the application will not change the potential impacts associated with noise. The impacts from noise are therefore not expected to be significant. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\BanonRevAdd.WPD 4 XIII. a) The proposed development will have a direct impact on public services and will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, acting under City contract. Site development will generate property tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The project area will continue to pay the mandated school fees as development occurs. These fees mitigate the students generated, and offset the impacts to schools. The collection of property tax, and the generation of sales tax from these residents' disposable income, will generate revenues to the City to offset the added costs associated with the provision of municipal services. Builders within the project area will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program, which helps to offset roadway improvement costs. The amendment of the application will not significantly change the impacts to public services. Increases in population resulting from the increased number of lots will be offset by increased revenues in property and sales tax. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. a) The Village of the Palms project determined traffic impacts for development would be less than significant". Under EA 2001-408 (City Council Resolution No. 2001-34) it was determined that a traffic study would not be required, provided the sites were developed to comply with the LDR General Plan designation and Impact Mitigation Fees were paid. The amendment of the application will add only 330 trips per day to the regional road system. The application, as amended, still falls within the Low Density Residential land use category. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to the circulation system to a less than significant level. XVI. a)-f) The buildout of the site will require service from utility providers. The overall impacts on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required at construction of any project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4 Environmental Assessments prepared for the County of Riverside. These include: PP15672, Fast Track #98-39; TTM 29316 & 29317; Environmental Assessment No. 37276, Amd. No 1. 364 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\EartonRevAdd.WPD 5 00 ai U � ►-a o CZA o a� 0 o O N U U �a zw .. Z COs 0 w .. O a O t a Z O a� a� o o r O ON o o •• N Z � U a F A U� ZA aU �W ox UV U G 0-4 U a cy U ... o U Ej o A A.,a�UH a � � b o o •4-4 ° •° 4-4 •° 0 U U U U U 1 Cd •� U U •.A . U -4 � a O N 4-10 .� O w *E 0 ago O4-4 .4?, O .� O r, .O .� 010 • vm cd a .a. c as a as a .a w a x Wz �O a 0 0 a i U Q � > z z ': ,4 ° �, �, a A aA 4-4 04 U A U U U U G� U A G � o 0-4 r. 0 a O cd "orA V] .. cd •`r C's N Q Cd 3 0 4 •d a pa a U a. 36a W W W � d � A A A aV aU a.0 OV OV OV U U U •d � o 0.0 .d Cd ° " a � a cl U CIS 0 W cd o U p" U V aj y A 4.04 U s �? v� 14 Au 'Id o � o O z ° z z 0� � ,Cd to o ao o o o Cd A a a4 a .a a a 04 b a a z a z •bD � cl a zz aiA zF z� a',U A CU 04 a a w� a w •� QCd , b� a Ua uCA , U aaUA 0 z o .� � g z o O z o d .co ato Uo ao z N o 3 p4 Cd U O+ a ►� c w cn U O 0 36ifa. a E-y A U00 ZA aU �W ox UU w a U a a� CIO) 4-4 z U 0 a a 0 w� ao zz a a0 A b moo co a omm •. �C U 4 U>4 ZA aU OU U w 0 a4m4 a b•°� a ab a a� M••i O F > c A a 4-1 o a W ►z CD A Cd a VA zcqs o w A r. z.� o F o Cd ti • v a 3 W U 3 fcl 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REVISED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 130 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND COMMON LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 38.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET CASE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 51h day of February, 2002, and 5th day of March, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a request by Barton Properties for Charles and Norma Fausel for amendment to 130 single family and other miscellaneous common/utility lots on approximately 38.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 11 th day of December, 2001, and 8th day of January, 2002, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1), and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 2002-005 recommending approval to the City Council, more particularly described as: Assessor's Parcel No.: 761-720-020 Southwest 1 /4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 3rd day of July, 2001, approve Tentative Tract Map 30092, a single family development of 97 lots and other miscellaneous common lots by adoption of Resolution 2001-92, on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, the Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Department has prepared a revised Environmental Assessment for this Map Amendment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2001- 417) was certified by the City Council on July 3, 2001, under Resolution 2001-091. There are no changed circumstances, conditions, or new information which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and GAResoccT30092 #1 Barton 58th.wpd/Greg 3U6 Resolution No. 2002- TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 2 WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Tentative Tract Map Amendment: 1 . The proposed Tentative Tract Map Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the subdivision will result in the creation of 8,500 + sq. ft. residential lots to be developed in accordance with the existing Pre -Annexation Zoning (Low Density Residential) and General Plan (Low Density Residential) designations as established. Project density is approximately 3.5 units per acre within the allowed maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. Tract access for residents is limited to 58t" Avenue, a Primary Arterial thoroughfare. 2. The design and improvements for the Tentative Tract Map Amendment are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that all proposed single family lots meet and exceed minimum required dimensions and sizes requirements and perimeter Arterial streets will be constructed.. The design of private streets servicing the residential lots are consistent with standards as contained in the General Plan Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13). 3. The design of the Map, and its proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidable injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the site is vacant and has been previously disturbed by farming activity, to the degree that the site itself does not support any wildlife species. 4. The design of the proposed subdivision map and related improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that responsible agencies have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. Necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are readily accessible. The health, safety and welfare of current and future residents can be assured based on the recommended conditions, which serve to implement mitigation measures for the project, including emergency only access on Monroe Street. To contain on -site stormwater, a retention basin has been proposed at the southeast corner of the project. Site grading is consistent with adjacent parcels and any on -site work will require dust control measures pursuant to Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. 5. The design of, and type of improvements for, the Map will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, 36J Resolution No. 2002- TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 3 property within the subdivision, as the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for these issues with no concerns identified. The Tract's design includes provisions for lot access and utility and other public easements as determined necessary during review of the proposal. Landscape lots adjacent to perimeter arterial streets will provide aesthetic and traffic noise buffers in compliance with City requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) assessed the environmental concerns of this Map; and 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1), for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 51h day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2002- TTM 30092 (Amendment #1), Barton Properties Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 4 ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOLUTION NO. 2002- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092 (AMENDMENT #1), BARTON PROPERTIES MARCH 5, 2002 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map 30092 (Amendment #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Map approval shall expire and become null and void on the original approval date of July 3, 2003, unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of TTM 30092 (Amendment #1) and certification of EA 2001-417 (Revised). The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following agencies and departments: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. G: Cond CC Tr. 30092 # 1 /Greg 3T Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 2 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing five or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing five or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (NOI) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. 2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Main Entry: As required for final configuration of the private gated entry as approved by the City Engineer. 2) Residential: 37-foot width. Width may be reduced to 33 feet with parking restricted to one side and 29 feet if on -street parking is prohibited provided there is adequate off-street parking for 3 '7 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 3 residents and visitors and the applicant makes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. C. CULS DE SAC - Public or Private: Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 39.5-foot radius, or larger. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 1 1 . The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Primary Arterials) - 20 feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks, multi -use trails) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 4 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS) AND PARCEL MAPS) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. 370 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 5 "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. GRADING 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish written acknowledgment from CWQCB of receipt of applicants Notice of Intent (NOI). 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 3�r� Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 6 24. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 27. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 29. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. 377 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 7 In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 30. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 31. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 32. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 33. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 8 final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. DRAINAGE 34. Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the State NPDES General Construction Permit. 35. Applicant's SWPPP shall be approved prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. 36. Applicant's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shalt include provisions for all of the following BMPs: A. Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). B. Temporary Sediment Control. C. Wind Erosion Control. D. Tracking Control. E. Non -Storm Water Management. F. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. 37. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. 38. All project BMPs shall be maintained throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 39. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 40. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual - lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2.5 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 379 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 9 41. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 42. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 43. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 44. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be five feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 45. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 46. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 47. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City - or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&R's for meeting these potential obligations. 3&0 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 10 48. The tract shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. UTILITIES 49. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all aboveground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 50. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise allowed by General Plan Amendment 2000-073. Power lines exceeding 34.5 Kv are exempt from this requirement. 51. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 52. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 2) Monroe Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct 43-foot half of 86- foot improvement (measured curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot meandering sidewalk. Applicant shall construct a landscaped half median, unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer. 381 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 11 3) Developer shall enter into a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the main entrance off Avenue 58 at such time that signal warrants are met. Developer shall pay its fair share based on an "after the fact" traffic study. Developer may assign secured agreement to the HOA. Signalized intersection costs to be divided based on percentages of use to the participating developments. B. PRIVATE STREETS - Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the homeowners association. C. CULS DE SAC - Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38-foot curb radius. D. MULTI -USE TRAIL - The applicant shall construct a multi -use trail along the Avenue 58 frontage within the required 32-foot wide setback. The location and design of the trail shall be approved by the City. A split rail fence shall be constructed to separate the multi -use trail from the pedestrian sidewalk and perimeter wall in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. The multi -use trail, trail signs, and the split rail fence shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first residence. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 53. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 54. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 3 � Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 12 55. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 56. Knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 57. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1 ' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 58. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.011/5.0011 4.0"/6.00" 4.511/6.0011 5.511/6.5011 59. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 60. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic 38 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 13 control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 61. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - No turning restriction. B. Emergency Access on Monroe Street - No public access allowed; left turns are restricted. LANDSCAPING 62. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas and medians shall be prepared by a landscape architect and be prepared based on the water conservation measures in Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 63. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. 64. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 65. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 384 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 14 66. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES 67. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 68. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 69. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 70. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 71. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 72. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks (except for multi -use trails). The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 15 FEES AND DEPOSITS 73. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 74. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 75. The developer shall pay school mitigation fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District based on their requirements. Fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance by the City. 76. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 77. Prior to final map approval, parkland fees shall be paid as required by Section 13.48 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 78. The property owner/developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a check made out to the County of Riverside in the amount of $64 to permit the filing and posting of EA 2001-417 (Revised) after the City Council's review. FIRE DEPARTMENT 79. Approved standard fire hydrants, located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. 80. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants. 81. Gates entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel lanes. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35'-0" setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop 38 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 16 without obstructing traffic on the road. Where one way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be used. 82. Gates, if any, shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 83. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. 84. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 85. The minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum clearance of 1 T-6" in height. MISCELLANEOUS 86. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking purposes. 87. All mitigation measures included in Environmental Assessment 2001-417 (Revised) are hereby included in this approval. 88. Separate pedestrian gates shall be provided at each site access location. 89. Prior to submitted the Final Map for plan check consideration, the following corrections and/or information shall be provided: A. Lots 131 (retention basin) and 132 (well site) shall be designated as lettered lots. B. Two copies of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) . The City Attorney shall approve the document prior to approval of the final map by the City Council. 387 Resolution No. 2002- Conditions of Approval - Recommneded TTM 30092, Amendment #1, Barton Prop. Adopted: March 5, 2002 Page 17 C. A minimum of three street names shall be submitted for each private street shown on the Map exhibit. A list of the names in ranking order shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. D. Bureau of Reclamation easements that traverse the project site shall be disclosed. E. No permanent improvements may be constructed within the 50-foot easement area of the Avenue 58 agricultural drain or the 10-foot easement area of lateral 123.45-0.75 without the written consent of the Coachella Valley Water District. 388 City Council Minutes February 5, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, /APVING A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR KIRK COURT TO CORAL MOUNOURT (!::;CHANGE 2001-013 - DR. BRUCE BAUMANN.) It was move by q9MOMMembers A ph/Hen to adopt solueember o. 2002-13 as fitted. Motion c ied imously with Perkins and Mayor Pena ABSENT. goo 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-417 AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30092, AMENDMENT NO. 1; A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 38.4 ACRES INTO 130 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MONROE STREET. APPLICANT: BARTON PROPERTIES, INC. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 8:17 p.m. Planning Manager di lorio presented the staff report. Council Member Adolph expressed appreciation for the landscape setbacks at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street but voiced concern about the lack of visitor parking in the cul-de-sacs. Community Development Director Herman advised the City Code does not address that issue and added driveways will accommodate a minimum of two vehicles. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor Pro Tern declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 8:23 p.m. Council Member Henderson commented on the density of the project and lack of open space and stated she also has a problem with the lack of parking. She suggested sending the project back to the developer for redesign. After a brief discussion, Council concurred to continue this item to give staff an opportunity to work with the developer to address the issues of lot design, parking, and street configuration. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Adolph to continue the public hearing for Tentative Tract Map 30092 for Barton Properties, Inc. to March 5, 2002. Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Perkins and Mayor Pena ABSENT. 38j IN 704E CITY OF LA OWMA. COUNTY OF ROVERSOOE. STATE OF CAUFORM TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30092 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTOON 22. T.M. R.7& SOW KRNARDINO MERIDIAN N1 "Man- 4NtIN4411Nt. INS. f A4� 2001 Attachment ..,�..;; ac ment 2 :i �A W r r� M T N � MMnM 4u1f NO ACjz Aut ftwum aw laosz � Ca po= SLOO M I •bl a 1G�t LA OUNTA t MW ww" ftAw am wee ^VPN IA aR ROOD 2GI�E port: o Mtn W MM� Mv MOM Now am HM COAL H r, VICHTY MAr ao so•v1 Attachment 3 eas IN THE CITY OF " QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSID& STATE OF CAUFORNIA TENTH TIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30o92 . THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, T.6S., R 7& S.B.B.M. i U A.P.N.7'61 7'20-�019 k?400 '`S MOUANMTTMES ,:: 64.000. CY. DOM POISED LOT MA 6M 7M OONFOEM am Gomm .T 0. so ro' re• re' ro• st 7H15 POINT ''A1wf' Pub 06 A GRADE P� A g AC P oud<i/l COURSE I 2f ft OF ODURSE PAVE1 M M S BGRADE 71MAL STET sEcnoNs wr 7n c &# e N Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 10. Commissioners Kirk, Butler, and Tyler agreed. 1 1. There being no further discussion, it was moved and se nded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning mission Resolution 2002-001, recommending Certificati see Negative Declaration of Environmental Impa Environmental Assessment 2001-415, as recommende ROLL : AYES: Commissioners Butl k, Robbins, Tyler, and hairman Abels. NOES: ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: e. 12. It was mov nd seco by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Resolution 2002-002, recommending approval of Tentat act Map 29963, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: missi� Chair Abels. NO N Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: 13.irbirichearing g no further discussion, iN oved and seconded by oners Robbins/Tyler toPlanning Commission 2002-003 recommendiCity Council that a be held to consider Street Nam ange 2001-013. 40L CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbi Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. STAIN: None. C. Continued Environmental Assessment 2001-417 and Tentative Tract Map 30092; a request of Barton Properties for certification of an Environmental Assessment and subdivision of approximately 38.4 acres into 130 single family and` other common lots located at the northwest corner of Avenue 58 and Monroe Street. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if this was within the City's Sphere of Influence. Community Development Director Jerry Herman 3� G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 clarified it was annexed into the City November 30, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked about the temporary designation for the CVWD lift station. Commissioner Robbins clarified till someone builds a sewer it will be used. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition #2 regarding the expiration date. Staff stated it is two years from the date of the City Council approval and the condition could be removed. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 50 regarding the City's new standard in regard to the Kvs for power poles. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is only the power lines that are attached to the 92 Kv power poles that are exempt, and therefore, it would be changed to 92 Kv. Commissioner Tyler asked about the multi -use trail as it did not appear to go anywhere. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the City has envisioned a trail system that goes east and west to create a trail system leading to Lake Cahuilla which has a trail head. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #62 as to whether or not is was needed as it does not appear to allow sufficient stacking. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that since these are private streets staff anticipates that a future HOA will want to gate the entrance and staff wants to ensure the street entrance is sufficiently designed to accommodate a gate. Since the map and language have been redesigned, staff would suggest the condition be deleted. Commissioner Tyler. questioned Condition #89 as to whether or not it would apply to, the emergency access on Monroe Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated as the condition is currently written there would be a pedestrian access at the emergency access. ' 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Hacker, Hacker Engineering representing the applicant, stated he concurred with the conditions with the exception of Condition #52.D, regarding the multi -use trail. It would be a maintenance item for the HOA. They would prefer to dedicate to the City so that when the dedication of the additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners was obtained, this could then be constructed. At this time they would prefer to landscape the area. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if they were willing to bond for it. Mr. Hacker asked what type of trail it would be. Commissioner Butler stated mostly equestrian. Mr. Hacker stated they accepted the condition as written. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wpd 11 3 % Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 5. Commissioner Robbins asked about the purpose of having a dry well on each lot, as most of them will never be maintained and why isn't the retention basin sized to handle the run off. Mr. Hacker stated the retention basin is large enough to handle the run off, this is a backup solution only. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears to be the drainage plan of first resort by the way the lots are laid out. Mr. Hacker stated the dry well is an option and will only be installed if they do not meet the drainage requirements. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked staff if this was allowed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the 100 year storm needs to be retained in the retention basin. The City does allow them to retain their nuisance water in privately gated communities in alternate methods. If they are for nuisance water it is up to the applicant. If storm water, the retention basin needs to retain it. Mr. Hacker stated he concurred. 8. There being no further discussion, the public participation of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated his only concern was that it is just another straight line development. 10. Commissioner Butler asked if the stacking on Avenue 58 was enough. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated two car stacking is 50 feet and will be enough and went on to explain the traffic flow. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-004, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-417, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-005, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 30092, Amendment #1, as amended. 3 9* 4 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-8-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2002 A. Delete Condition #62. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Specific Plan 98-034. Amendment #1; a request of Warner Engineering for Lundin Development Company for dment to the text development standards and design es a n amendment to the site plan design adjacent to AA 50 f 100,500 square foot shopping center located at thhwest c r of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50. 1. Chairman Ab pened the c hearing and asked for the staff report. P ipal Planner n Sawa presented the information contai in the staff rt, a copy of which is on file in the Co nity Develop t Department. 2. airman Abel ked if there were uestio of staff. Commissioner er asked if the Co ion had t F'authority to waive the re ement for the b g. Staff st a it is a Zoning Ordinance uirement but,,, r a Specific P T the development standard be modifie ommissioner r asked if the right - out at emergen ate on the we y driveway not being inclu in the S is Plan was an rsight or a reluctance of the plicant taff stated the. id not know, but they are co ion install it. 3. CYRM"i"ssioner Butler aske out any alternatives to the berming. Staff stated the applica alternative is landscape,, ide the screening along w' "a wall next to the f restaur Commissioner Butler ed if the bermi a safety fa for traffic on Jeffers Street -or ae cs. Staff stat was aesthetics. 4. Commissioner k as or background on t se of setbacks for retention. explained the reasons gave examples. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had a r mendation on the number of accesses that should be allow e n Avenue 50, beyond the emergency access. Senior Enginee eve Speer stated staff has been scaling the distances between a driveways and it came to 109 feet which is rather short. I a result, staff added Condition #38.E. eliminating the one access on the west end of the site on Avenue 50. r, •\wPnnrS\PC Minutes\PC 1-8-02.wod 19 Mar 04 02 O6:39p Debbie Harris Sherman Mar 04 00 06:I1p Debbie Harris 6herman 1Vlttrch 4.2002 Jetty Herman Director of Community Development MY OF LA QUINTA La Quints, California (7601 836-9181 p.1 l'fou) a-aa-ai01 p.; Re: Timtative'Tract Map 35-4 xcrca W Comer Monroe & Ave. 58 Dcar Mr- Herman: We understand that the tentative tract map for parool number 761-720-020 (the "Property") filed by Barton Properties, Inc. ("Barton") will be considered by the City of La Qainta City Council in its session on the evening of Mmh S, 2002. As you know, we are the owners of the Property as Trustees of the Charts E. Fausel acid Norma J. Fausci Revocable Trust Wed May 23. 1997. We further understated frvin the city atternoy's office that once the tentative trwt reap is zpproved, the final tract rnap is a mere ministerial function end that we would not be able to prevent it from being recorded against the Property. As y0tt know, Barron had filed suit agtunbi us sewing to enforce its alleged right to purchase the Property. Barton also recorded a Cos Pendent against the property. Tire Riverside County Superior Cow► however, ordered the Lis Pondens expunged and expressly found that Barton had not established a valid claim as to the Property. The Court further found that Barton had failed to establish the probable validity of its allagcd claim. As such, the Lis Pendent was expunged and Lhe expungmnent was recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's of oc. Accord4ly, based upon both the representations !'rani the city attorney's office and the C'ourt's express Endir_gs, authority is no longer given by us for the City Council to consider the tentative tract map filed by Banon. Id Wd2S:2-0 200Z VO '-AeW Sincerely, i 1 Chsrlos E. Fausei an a J. Fause .39 : 'ON 3NOHd : WC6j 03-04-02 18.38 RECEIVED FROM:760 336 9181 P.O1 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 5, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE• STUDY SESSION: Public Hearing on Environmental Assessment 2001- PUBLIC HEARING: •3 440 and Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, the Northeast Fire Station Applicant: City of La Quinta RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Certifying a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-440. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving the development design for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, the Northeast Fire Station. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Design costs associated with the Fire Station were programmed into the current year's Capital Improvement Program. The construction costs associated with the project will be included in the 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program. The total project cost, including an engine, is expected to be $2,646,000. Funding is currently budgeted from Infrastructure Funds in the amount of $1,386,518 and a loan from RDA Project Area 2, to be repaid from an amended (if approved by the City Council) Development Impact Fee which will include a Fire component. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: The Charter may allow the City to bid the Project without a prevailing wage requirement, which could result in a cost savings. The City Attorney will further research this possibility and provide a definitive opinion prior to the City bidding the project. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The project site is located on the west side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue, and is currently vacant. The site is bordered on the south by a church, on the west side by residential development, on the north by the Adams Street Park and a mobile home park, and on the east, across Adams Street by residential development. 397 S:\Com Dev\Betty\firestation.wpd Project Request In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the proposed project involves the review of the design and site planning for the new proposed Fire Station. The Fire Station project is a programmed Capital Improvement Project, and has been planned for some time. The City Council approved the design concept at its study session on February 5, 2002. This application represents the results of the design effort. Project Description The proposed Fire Station will be approximately 7,800 square feet, and will be located on 1.4 acres of currently vacant land. The Fire Station is proposed to serve the northern portion of the City. A CVWD pump station is located at the northeastern corner of the site, and will be walled in as part of this project. A wall is proposed for the balance of the site, with the exception of wrought iron proposed for a portion of the northern boundary, to provide views from the residential quarters to the Adams Park property. The station will include a public office area, on the southern end of the building, vehicle bays in the middle of the structure, and residential quarters on the northern portion of the site. The facilities have been designed to provide as much buffer as possible to the residential land uses to the northwest and west of the site. The architectural style proposed is Mediterranean, with concrete the on the pitched roof, and a stucco finish on the walls. Landscaping focuses on a desert planting palette and decomposed granite, for ease of maintenance. The turf areas have been kept to a minimum, and occur adjacent to the patio area which will be next to the living quarters. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the design at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 26, 2002. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Fire Station design, as conditioned. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The findings necessary to approve this request can be made, and are included in the attached Resolutions. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 39 SACom Dev\Betty\firestation.wpd 002 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Certifying a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-440; Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving the development design plans for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, the Northeast Fire Station; 2. Do not adopt the above Resolutions; or 3. Remand the applications to the Planning Commission for further consideration; or 4. Continue the request and provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Tom Hartung Building and Safety Director Approved for Submission, Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2002. 2. Elevations, Site Plan and Landscape Plan (City Council only) 399 003 S:\Com Dev\Betty\firestation.wpd RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2001-14. FIRE STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-440 for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 located on the west side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of February, 2002 hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-440 prepared for Capital Improvement Project 2001- 14; and WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-440) and has determined that although the proposed located on the west side of Adams Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed, and! WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-440. 2. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to 400 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\FireStatEA.WPD 004 City Council Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-440 City of La Quinta Fire Station Adopted: March 5, 2002 eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or,eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 440 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of 1 the CityCouncil for this Environmental Assessment. 4 �- 005 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\FireStatEA.WPD City Council Resolution 2002- Environmental Assessment 2001-440 City of La Quinta Fire Station Adopted: March 5, 2002 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-440 for the reasons set forth in the Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 40 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\FireStatEA.WPD 006 Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tom Hartung, 760-777-7000 4. Project Location: West side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Design approval for construction of a 7,800 square foot fire station on 1.4 acres of currently vacant land. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Public Park South: Church West: Low Density Residential East: Low Density Residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Not applicable G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 1 40J 007 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Lj Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared In - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. In - I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Fol I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date 404 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 008 2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 4o o 009 Issues land Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X FN X X X 94 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD ? o 010 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM Tech, January 2002) G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 5 X X X X X X M b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM Tech, January 2002) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Lakebed Delineation Map) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site...," CRM Tech, January 2002) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-2, page 6-7) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan MEA, page 6-2 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment page 5-32) X X X X X X X X X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 6 012 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-1 1) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY : Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4- 30 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) X X X X X X X X X KI F:l X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 013 7 IX. X. XI. f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17, Project Description) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6-17) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA, Exhibit 6-4, page 6- 17, Project Description) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) 1:1 X 1� R X X X 19 X X X 0 014 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) X X X X X X X X X 91 X 41 `l G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 015 9 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (General Plan EIR, page 4-126 ff.) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4- 20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) X X X X X X X X X X X X G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 4 10 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. K4 X 1:1 Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis were used in this review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site on Adams Street, prepared by CRM Tech, January 24, 2002. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStCklst.WPD 4�4 11 0.1 Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-440 111. c) The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The construction of the proposed fire station will generate dust, which could contribute to the PM 10 problem in the area. In order to control PM 10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. The contractor hired by the City will be required to submit such a plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity at the site. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 8. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 9. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from construction of the fire station will not be significant. 414 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStAdd.WPD 018 V. b) A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property'. The assessment found no surficial deposits either on the site or previously recorded on adjacent or nearby parcels. The report concludes that development on the site is likely to represent no impact on archaeological deposits, but recommends the following mitigation measure, since no trenching was undertaken on the site: 1. Should any archaeological resource be identified during earth moving activities on the site, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be brought in to identify and catalogue the find. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site until it has been appropriately dealt with. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the fire station. V1. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The fire station will be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will implement requirements for a PM 10 management plan, and additional mitigation measures have been included in the Air Quality discussion above. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vlll.b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The development of the fire station will require domestic water, although this will be less than typical residential development, since the fire fighters will be few in number. The City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on -site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts associated with groundwater will be implemented on the site. The City will also require that the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance are implemented. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Proposed Fire Station Site on Adams Street," f '— prepared by CRM Tech, January 24, 2002. 4141 019 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStAdd.WPD VIII. c)-d) The City requires that all construction projects retain the 100 year 24 hour storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The project's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. These standards will reduce the potential impacts associated with drainage to a less than significant level. XI. a) The noise levels at the project site are predicted to exceed 60 dBA CNEL at General Plan buildout. The fire station is not, however, a sensitive receptor. The station, however, will be located in an area which is primarily residential in nature, and will generate short term temporary noise which is not typical of a residential area, namely in the form of sirens, loudspeakers, and truck engines. These noise generators are temporary, and will not have a significant impact on the overall noise environment. In addition, the site will be walled on all sides. These noise generators could, however, pose an annoyance to surrounding residents. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: 1 . Loud speakers and/or alarm bells shall not operate outside the fire station between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 2. Fire trucks shall not idle in the back (west) of the fire station. Maintenance and cleanup which may require idling shall be performed either in the vehicle bays with the westerly roll -up doors down, or in the front (east) driveway. These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with on - site noise to a less than significant level. XI. c) Noise levels will also be affected by construction activities on the site. The noise created by the construction activity, particularly that of trucks and other mechanical equipment, could impact residential development adjacent to the site. In order to mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. All internal combustion equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located as far as practical from adjacent residential units. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. 410 These mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts associated with noise at the subject property to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\FireStAdd.WPD C � o � z � a E-+ A U� ZA aU W ox UU b 0-0 W � a A b � U Cd o 0 b Cd O' d .� O U U a U v� Q � cd Q, aa� b b Cd U � cd U_ •� U •-� � ono U O V O A a c a ion. A a O� wz rA z r„tb to b b b U U U G� W a1 o a Z C a� N M O U $4 cn Cdto A Q� Qi • ca a Ube 3 .� .4 a bCd a 3 O U) LL y Q C w U) U O cl a. I -TA F A U� �A aU �W ox UV 0 a a2 W o U � � v� a O o F o U 4-1 �O a a .-1 wz E �o oz Q U Q cA r. z O cin 0 � rF cn Q V 4. O Q WJ V� F o cn .� U � � F A V� ZA aU �W ox UV W a o 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a F O O U O v v 0 o a a a a a oz z� zz 00 a � a o a o Q Q A A W ao ono oA ao z o o cl 0 :$ cl a .d Ocn rA 64 Q 421 CI O aW,y cl � M "4 .� RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14, FOR A FIRE STATION CASE NO.: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the design of a fire station to be located on the west side of Adams Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 26th day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the design of a fire station to be located on the west side of Adams Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue; and WHEREAS, said Capital Improvement Project request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that Environmental Assessment 2001- 440 has been recommended with mitigation measures for certification; and! WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approving said Capital Improvement Project: 1. The Capital Improvement Project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the proposed project furthers the City's General Plan goals for a full service community. The use is consistent with the goals and policies and intent of the General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2). 2. The approval of this Capital Improvement Project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that the project will conform to development standards contained in the Development Code. 3. The proposed land use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to, or incompatible with other land uses in that the project will integrate into the existing neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\FireStationCIP14.WPD 023 23 City Council Resolution 2002- Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 City of La Quinta Fire Station Adopted: March 5, 2002 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Capital Improvement Project 2001- 14, to allow a fire station on the west side of Adams Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and made a part of as Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 5th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\FireStationCIP14.WPD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14 ADOPTED: MARCH 5, 2002 1. The height of the palm trees is to be substantial. 2. The design of the landscaping along the driveway and over the entire site shall take into consideration the grade. 3. Vine material shall be added to the wall on the street side, west side and south side. 4. The pine trees in the streetscape shall be replaced with something consistent with what is across Adams Street. 5. The perimeter wall shall be split face and a split face veneer used instead of the wainscoting. 6. The roof color shall be compatible with the split face color. G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\FireStationCIP14.WPD F1 w► j ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 B. Environmental Assessment 2001-440 and Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 for the Northeast La Quinta Fire Station; a request of the City for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an Environmental Assessment and approval of development design plans for Capital Improvement Project for the construction of a Fire Station to be located on the west side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue. 1 . Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Environmental Assessment was not included in the packet. Staff noted it was inadvertently omitted from the packet. Chairman Abels recessed the hearing to allow staff time to make copies of the EA for Commission review and reconvened the hearing. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any other questions of staff. There being no other questions, Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. Commissioners expressed their approval of the design. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-029, recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-440, subject to the findings as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-030, recommending approval of the development design plans for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, the Northeast Fire Station, as recommended. 4 00h G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Village Use Permit 2000-040, Amendment #1; a request of Chapman Golf Development to allow development plans for a 7,500 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. ',,Commissioner Kirk withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest %and left the dias. 2. Ch irman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff repo t. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information conta ed in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Comm ity Development Department. 3. Chairman bels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commission r Robbins asked if the landscaping would conform to the City's La scaping Ordinance. Staff noted it complies with the Ordinance. 4. There being no'fu her questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wou Like to address the Commission. Mr. Ralph Reyes, lighting consul ant, gave a presentation on the project. 5 Chairman Abels asked if ere were any questions of the lighting consultant. Commissione\ Tyler asked the color of the high pressure lights. Mr. Reyes tated it was the amber color and explained the appearance. 6. Chairman Abels asked if there was ny other public comment. Mr. Skip Leneh, 87-215 Calle Cadiz, stat his concern that either this item be continued or set aside until th landscaping and lighting issues could be resolved with the adjoin' g residents. The City Council had requested the applicant work ith the neighbors in regard to the trees and lighting. They contac d the applicant and they agreed to meet with them, but the meetin '' never took place. Now, there is a different lighting engineer. The nning staff was also asked to meet with the residents and never id. The lights were at 18 feet and now tonight they have a new I hting study and the lights are at 16 feet. This project backs up to sidential properties. The new restaurant on La Fonda has lights at feet. The La Quinta Hotel does not have 16 foot high lights. All they G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-26-02.wpd 11 n�^Q