DIF Study 2013 - FINAL4 4a Qulaz'�OFOFT�'
CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
DEVELOPMENTIMPACT
FEE STUDY
FEBRUARY 5, 2013 - FINAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Don Adolph, Mayor
Terry Henderson, Mayor Pro Tem
Lee Osborne, Council Member
Linda Evans, Council Member
Kristy Franklin, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Frank Spevacek
CITY STAFF
Building and Safety Department
Greg Butler, Building and Safety Director
City Attorney's Office
M. Katherine Jenson, City Attorney
Planning Department
Les Johnson, Planning Director
Community Services Department
Edie Hylton, Community Service Director
Finance Department
Robbeyn Bird, Finance Director
Public Works Department
Tim Jonsson, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
OTHER ASSISTANCE
NAI Consulting, Inc.
Nick Nickerson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Background and Setting
A.
Organization of the Report
1
B.
Facilities Addressed in this Report
1
C.
Development Projections
1
D.
Impact Fee Analysis
1
E.
Recovery of Study Cost
3
F.
Summary of Impact Fees
3
G.
Projected Revenue
4
H.
Implementation
4
Section 1- Introduction
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
4-3
A.
Legal background
1-1
B.
Purpose of the Fees
1-3
C.
Use of 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, Demographics 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.
Measure of Demand
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 Variables
6-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
6-2
E.
Impact Fees
6-2
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
7-1
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 Variables
8-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
8-1
E.
Impact Fees
8-2
Section 9 —
Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees
A
Service Area and Time Frame
9-1
B.
Level of Service
9-1
C.
Demand Variable
9-1
D.
Facility Needs and Cost Allocation
9-2
E.
Impact Fees
9-3
Section 10
— Implementation
A.
Adoption
10-1
B.
Administration
10-1
C.
Training and Public Information
10-5
Appendix 1- Detailed Cost Estimated for Street Improvements
Appendix 2- Basis for Number of Trips Generated
Appendix 3- County Road Conversion to Urban Arterial
Appendix 4- Development Impact Fee Comparison
iii
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the fifth 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 "AB1600" and to
support findings necessary to satisfy both statutory and constitutional standards for the
establishment and impositions 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 uses and development in La Quints, 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 free
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)
Library (Section 6)
Community Center (Section 7)
Maintenance Facility (Section 8)
Fire Protection Facilities (Section 9)
C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development
expected to occur in La Quints from June 2012 to build -out of the City under the 2035 General
Plan Update. It is not necessary for purposes of this study to forecast the time at which build -out
will occur. Estimated development potential of the study area was evaluated by the La Quints
Planning Department and is based on the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update. Other data on
development and demographics were taken from the 2010 U.S. Census, and Department of
Finance Population estimates.
D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Each type of facility addressed in the 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 3. The impact fees calculated in this report cover only capital costs. They do
February 5, 2013 -Final Page I
City afia Quinta —Development Impact Fee Study
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, primary, and secondary 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 on 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 as
recently expanded 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 Civic Center facilities.
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 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's 20,000 square foot library will be sufficient to serve both
existing and future development, Because of the deficiency in existing facilities relative to the
standard used in the study, the City contributed approximately $6 mullion from non -impact fee
sources to justify impact fees at the recommended level. Because library facility needs are
defined in term 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 terns of square feet per capita. The only
existing community center facilities identified in the study is the multi-purpose room at the Senior
Center, the Multipurpose Room at the La Quinta Museum, and the Community Room at the La
Quinta Boys and Girls Club. 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 cost 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
February 5, 2013 - Final Page 2
City of La Quinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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 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 to
repay loans to the DIF for the 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 future fire
stations needs by the total developed acreage of 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 through 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 percentage points to account for the cost of the study. To make that adjustment, fees
calculated in subsequent sections of the report have been multiplied by 1.053 to arrive at the fees
shown in table S-1.
F. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES
Table S -I 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.
Land Use Type
Develop-
meet Units
Transportation
Parks/
R.
Civic
Center
Fire
Protection
Libmrice
Community
Centers
Street
Fac.
Fee
Pad:
Fee.
Fac.
Total
Res (SFD)
DU-
$2,842
$2,048
5942
$433
5144
$129
5116
S40
$6,894
Res(SFA)
DU
$2,842
$2,048
5796
$366
5344
$129
$116
540
S601
R.(MFO)
DU
S1,745
$2,048
5447
$206
$344
5129
571
540
55,030
Office/Hos .
KSF
$4,645
$373
S171
5190
S5,379
General Com
KSF 3
$5,679
S373
SIR
$232
S6A56
To red Com
Room
51,590
8363
$167
865
52,185
Golf Courses
Acre
$669
$179 1
S82
S27
5958
I Residential- Single Family Demched
2 Dwelling Unit
s Residential- Single Family Attached
4 Residential -Multi family and other
5 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Building Area
February 5, 2013 - Final Page 3
City of La Quinta— Development Impact Fee Study
G. PROJECTED REVENUE
Table S-2 shows projected total revenue from impact fees, from now to build out, assuming that
the fees we adopted as recommended and that all development anticipated in this report actually
occurs. Note that projected revenue is given in current dollars.
Table S-2
Prniected Tmnaet Fee Revenue
Facility a
Projected Revenue'
Transportation
$34,734,680
Parks
$16,498,347
Civic Center
$8,343,957
Fire Station
$3,837,355
Libraries
$2,773,534
Community Centers
$1,037,702
Street and Park Maintenance
$1,739,383
TOTAL
$68,964,957
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 recoamomded. In that event, it is
important that the City identify which facilities are to be funded by the reduced impact fees, and
the share of total cost to be recovered through fees.
6P jeet Revenue in curt tdollars
February 5, 2013 - Final Page 4
City of La Ouinta —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 the fifth 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 (Section 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 type 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 operation costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently,
the fees recommended on 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 mle 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.
February 5, 2013 - Final /-!
ON of La Ouinta - Develomnent Impact Fee Studv
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 exaction 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 Section 66000 et seg.) and are commonly known as
"AB 1600" requirements, after the 1987 Assembly Bill 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
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:
The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed; and
The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Those requirements are discussed in detail below.
February 5, 2013 - Final 1-2
CiN afLa Ouinta — Develoumen! Imnac! Fee Studv
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 ndtigate the impacts of expected development in La
Quints 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 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
previsions, 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 manner. 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.
February 5. 2013 - Final 1-3
City of La Ouinta —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 terns of
quantifiable relationships between development and the demand for various types 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 the impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fees.
Procedurally, statutory provisions governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues, and
the requirements 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 requirements are addressed 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
equitable 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.
February 5, 2013 - Final 1-4
City of La Ouinta —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 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 be
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 costs 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 fees, 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 costs 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, community center, and maintenance facility. 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.
February S, 2013 -Final 1-5
City of La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
The standard based method is useful where facility needs is defined in terms of service standard,
and where unit cost 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 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
are addressed in this study:
• Transportation Improvements
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Civic Center
• Fire Protection Facilities
• Libraries
• Community Centers
• Maintenance Facilities
eA 7 sI 1I:V Y f�7�67:1191.00 Y:I.Xh ��I s1;a:\ A 7 YI:\CI
Much of the analysis in this report is based on information contained in the City of La Quinta
2035 General Plan Update, with particular emphasis on the Land Use Element, the Circulation
Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the hifmstructure and Public Services Element.
However, data on existing development has been updated to June 2012 by the La Quints, Planning
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.
February 5, 2013 -Final 1-6
City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION2
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 this
report. The information in this section provides a framework for defining levels of service, for
projecting public facility 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 by the La Quints Planning
Department. Sources of data include the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update, the 2010 U.S.
Census, and the California Department of Finance population estimates. Data on existing land
use, and demographics and development used in this report have been updated through June
2012.
I; o 17.Te K14MINN I1Z:\J-IM3pl 0 Y 10#1
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 Quints is contiguous with both of these 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.
While a vast majority of the land in La Quinta is designated for residential 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 2035 La Quinta General Plan Update. 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
2012 California Department of Finance estimates, single family detached units accounted for
about 79% of all residential units as of June 2012, with single family attached units making up
about 10%. Thus together, the two categories make up approximately 89% of La Quinta's
Existing residential units. Forecasts of future residential development indicate the percentage of
single-family detached units at build out will remain at about 79% of all residential development,
with single-family attached and multi-family/other unit accounting for 10% and 11%
respectively.
February S, 2013 - Final 2-1
ON o(La Ouinta — Development Imoact Fee Study
Population. Estimates of existing population and projections of future population in La Quinta
are used in 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
2010 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 the population forecasts.
La Quince's January 2012 population, as estimated by the State Department of Finance, was
38,075. That number represents permanent residents. However, as is the case for other desert
resort communities, La Quints's population increases considerably during the winter months,
owing to an influx of seasonal residents. The 2010 Census showed that 36.9% of all residential
units in La Quints, were vacant, including 27.5% which were for "seasonal, occasional, or
recreational" use. The Planning Department estimates that the City's total population may exceed
the permanent population by approximately 16,000 residents during peak season.
Figure 2-A illustrates the growth of La Quints's permanent population, which has more than
tripled since the City's incorporation. The population figures shown on Figure 2A are Department
Finance estimates for January 1 of each year since 1994. It should be noted that the drop in
population beginning in 2011 is based on the revised population estimates presented in the 2010
Census.
Potential Population. For purposes of the present study, permanent population is only partially
useful as a measure of the demand for public services. Because of seasonal fluctuation in the
population of La Quints, 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 basis measure of
demand for population related public services and the facilities that supports them.
February 5, 2013 - Final 2-2
ON ofLa Ouinta — 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
population for all categories of residential development, This study employs 2010 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 June
2012, 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 land use analysis of the City's 2035 General Plan
Update. Forecasts of future nonresidential development to build out were prepared by the City's
Planning Department.
E. MEASURE 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, presented later in this section, provide estimates of existing development and forecasts of
future development in La Quints, 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.
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 the 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 8s'
edition was used as the primary source).
February 5, 2013 - Final 2-3
Cityalta Ouinta—Develoament Ima-c Fee Studv
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 the average trip lengths by land use type are published by the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication, Vehicular Trak
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. Although the trip lengths presented in that
publication do not apply specifically to La Quints, 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 the 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 as presented later in this section. The following charts illustrate
graphically the relationship of existing development (from Table 2-1) to future development
(from Table 2-3),
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 greater than the
number of units currently existing, for all types of residential development in La Quints.
Figure 2-B
Residential
30000
25000
20000
0 Residential Added
c 15000
is
■ Residential Existing
3 10000
0
5000
0
SFD
SFA
MFO
February 5. 2013
i"
-Final 2-4
Citv o(La Ouinta—Development Impact Fee Study
Figure 2-C shows existing and future non-residential development in terms of square feet. Tourist
Commercial is presented within Figure 2-D and is based on number of rooms. The following
charts clearly illustrate the magnitude of anticipated future commercial development to the
amount of existing development in the City. Consequently, the impact of future development on
the demand for City services and public facilities will likely be proportionate.
6000
5000
0
e
K 4000
u 3000
2000
o•
N 1000
0
Non -Residential
Office Commercial
o Non ResidentialAdded
■Non Residential Existing
Figure 2-C
February 5, 2013 - Final 2-5
Tourist Commercial
3000
2500
oTounst Commercial
2000
Added
1500
IlTourist Commercial
Existing
1000
500
0
Rooms
Figure 2-D
February 5, 2013 - Final 2-5
City ofLa Quint — Development7 pact Fee Studv
Table 2-1
Existing Development - As of June 2012
Land use Category Use
Developed
Acres
Dev
t
Units
No. of
2
Units
Potential
Population
3
Peak
Hour
Trips°
Peak
How Trip
Miles 5
Residential (SF Detached)
4,453
DU
18,644
46,983
18,830
148,760
Residential (SF Attached)
530
DU
2,387
6,015
2,411
19,046
Residential (Multi / Other)
315
DU
2,516
6,340
1,560
12,323
Office ( Including)
78
KSF
747
1,113
9,795
General Commercial
384
KSF
3,680
13,726
59,024
Tourist Commercial
207
Rooms
1 1,130
700
1 5,323
Public Facilities
88
KSF
360
3,971
23,825
Schools
115
Acres
115
150
867
Develo d Parks
75
Acres
75
119
644
GolfCowses
4,317
Acres
4,317
,295
143.876
8,159
TOTALS
10,562
59,338
287,765
• 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 multi-family/other. Private non-residential development is
broken down into several categories: office, 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.
I DU= Dwelling Units, KSF= 1,000 square Foot Grass Arca
l Existing and Future Development estimated provided by the City of la Quints Planning Department
3 Potential population figures assume 1001% occupancy of dwelling unto. PmmvDU factors provided by the City Planning
Department: SFD=2.52; multl/Odle,--2.52.
a Peak hour trip rates:SFD=1.01 MU; Multi/Otlmr=0.62/DU; Office =1.49/KSF; Gen Commercial=3.93/KF=SF;
Tourist Commercial =9.59/Room; Public Facilities= II.03MF; schools— 13 Acre; Palos=1.59/Acre; Golf-
0.30/Acre.
5 Peak hour trip miles= peak hour trips x average trip miles(from SANDAL Traffic Generation). Average trip length and
peak hour rip miles; Residential SFD/SFA= 7.9 mi 17.98), Residential MFO= 7.9(4.90); Office= 8.8 mi(13.12);
General Canaemial=4J mi (16.4); Tourist Commercial =7.6mi(4.49); Public Facilities= 6.0 an (66. 18); Schools
= 5.8 Mi (7.54); Parks= 5.4 an (8.59); Golf Courses=6.3 mi (1.89)
February 5, 2013 - Final 1-6
City ofLa Ouinta-Development impact Fee Smdv
Table 2-2
Forecasted New Development- As of June 2012 to Build Out
Land use Category Use
Developed
Acres
Dev
Units
No. of
units
Potential
Population
Peak
Hour
Tris
Peak Hour
Trip miles
Residential (SF Detached)
1,665
DU
6,322
15,931
6,385
50,443
Residential (SF Attached)
172
DU
773
1,948
781
6,168
Residential (Multi / Other)
120
DU
960
2,419
595
4,702
Office ( Including)
54
KSF
518
772
6,792
General Commercial
143
KSF
1,370
5,110
21,973
Tourist Commercial
138
Rooms
1,360
802
6,098
Public Facilities
32
1 KSF 1
84
1
927
1 5,559
Schools
0
Acres
0
0
0
Developed Parks
50
Acres
50
80
429
Golf Courses
817
Acres
817
245
1,544
TOTALS
3,191
1
20,298
15,697
103,709
• NOTE: Some columns may not total precisely due to rounding. See Table 2-1 for footnotes.
Table 2-3
Ultimate Development at Build Out
Land use Category Use
Developed
Acres
Dev
Units
No. of
units.
Potential
Po elation
Peak
Hour
Tris
Peak Hour
Tri miles
Residential (SF Detached)
6,118
DU
24,966
62,914
25,216
199,204
Residential (SF Attached)
702
DU
3,160
7,963
3,192
25,214
Residential (Multi / Other)
435
DU
3,476
8,759
2,155
17,025
Office (Including)
132
KSF
1,265
1,885
16,587
General Commercial
527
KSF
5,050
18,837
80,997
Tourist Commercial
345
Rooms
2,490
1,503
11,421
Public Facilities
120
KSF
444
4,897
1 29,384
Schools
115
Acres
115150
867
Developed Parks
125
Acres
125
199
1,073
Golf Courses
5,134
Acres
1 5,134
1,540
9,703
TOTALS
13,753
1
1 79,636
59,572
391,475
• 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 Quints 2035 General Plan Update. 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 effect of rounding.
February 5, 2013 - Final 2-7
City ofLa Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Sault,
SECTIONS
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 Quints. 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 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 circulation systems 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 evaluated 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.
The City's Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the minimum peak hour standard for streets
in La Quints, and provides that, no development project shall be approved, without adequate
mitigation, if it will create conditions that violate the 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 systems.
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
The demand variables 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.
February 5, 2013 - Final 3-1
City otl a Ouinm — Development Impact Fee Stud,
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, sound attenuation walls and reimbursement to prior developers
that installed certain street improvements over and above the conditioned offsite improvements.
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, 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), left tum lanes, as well as median
improvements, on those arterials where they do not already exist. Impact fees for street
improvements we 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, traffic signals and/or roundabouts to be covered by impact fees assume that a portion of
the cost of some improvements will be contributed by other agencies, such as City of Indio,
Riverside County, or the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).
Tables 3-1 through 3-6 identify the street system capital improvements attributable to future
development. Total costs for development -related street -system improvements are shown in
Table 3-7. A detailed breakdown of cost estimates is included in Appendix A.
Table 3-1
Street Systems Improvement Costs— Major Arterials
Facility
Estimated Cost t
New Development Cost
Fred Waring Drive
$1,050,700
$848,500
TOTAL
$1,050,700
$$48,500
See Appendix t fordetailed cost estimates
February 5, 2013 - Final 3-2
City of La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-2
Street Systems Improvement Costs— Primary/ Secondary Arterials
Facility
Estimated Cost
New Development Cost
Adams Street
$720,469
$720,469
Done Palms Road
$1,929,370
$482,342
Miles Avenue
$984,737
$668,919
Madison Street
$15,665,761
$4,443,909
Monroe Street
$4,042,159
$2,578,199
Avenue 50
$1,887,877
$939,618
Avenue 52
$290,540
$290,540
Avenue 58 Extension
$3,728,519
$1,730,953
Avenue 62
$8,252,028
$5,952,644
TOTAL
$37,491,460
$17,807,593
Table 3-3 shows the cost of bridges needed to serve future development. As noted in the table,
costs for each of the four bridges listed are shared by CVAG and/or funding from the Highway
Bridge Program (HBP) sponsored by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The resulting cost is applied to new development.
Table 3-3 also includes the cost for the reconstruction of the Jefferson Street Interchange at
Interstate 10. The cost of this regional improvement is estimated to be $60,578,200, with CVAG
funding 75% of the costs. The County of Riverside, City of Indio and City of La Quinta will
share in the cost of funding the remaining 25% local share. The City of La Quinta is responsible
for 42% of the 25% local share. As indicated previously, the demand variable used in the
allocation of circulation system costs is peak hour trips. Using the tabulated data from Section 2,
future development accounts for 27.04% of total peak hour trips at build -out. Consequently,
27.0400% of La Quints's 42% share of the 25% local share will be assigned to future development.
Table 3-3
Street System Improvements- Bridge Improvements
Facility
Estimated Cast
New
Development
Share 2
New
Development
Cost
Avenue 50 at Evacuation Channel
$7,500,000
25.00%
$1,875,000
Dune Palms at Whitewater River
$17,510,000
25.00%
$4,377,500
Adams Street at Whitewater River
$13,500,000
20.00%
$2.700,000
Avenue 50 at All American Canal
$2,400,000
12.50%
$300,000
Jefferson Street lnterchan eat 1-10
$60,578,200
2.84%
$1,720,421
TOTAL
$101,488,200
$10,972,921
The share assigned to new development assumes up to 75% of the costs are funded man CVAG's Regional Aneml
Pmgmm and/or Gltmns Highway Bridge Pmgmm
The 27.04%share of 42% of the 25% local share assigned to new development equals 2.84%of the estimated cost.
February 5, 2013 - Final 3-3
Circ o(La Quinas -Development Impact Fee Study
Table 34 shows the cost of traffic signals and roundabouts needed to serve future development.
As noted in the table, costs for some of these improvements will be shared with other
jurisdictions.
With the exception of the citywide central control system and the Jefferson Street at Avenue 52
Roundabout Modifications, all of the remaining signals/roundabouts listed will be needed entirely
as a result of future development. As indicated in the Table 3-4, 27.04% of the cost of the
citywide central control system and Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Roundabout Modifications is
attributed to future development.
Table 3-4
Street System Improvement - Traffic Signals/ Modern Roundabouts
Location
Typeof
Improvement
Cost
New
Development
Share
New
Development
Cost
Dune Palms Road &
Corporate Center Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Washington Street & Via
Sevilla
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Washington Street & Lake La
Uinta Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Cal. Bay & Avenue 47
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100°/a
$430,000
Eisenhower Drive&
Montezuma
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Drive& Sinaloa
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison Street & Avenue 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison Street & Avenue 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison Street & Avenue 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 52
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
25%
$211,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
50%
$423,000
Monroe Street & Airport
Boulevard
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
50%
$423,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monroe Street & Avenue 61
Traffic Signal
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Monroe Street & Avenue 62
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
25%
$211,500
Orchard & Avenue 50
Traffic Signal
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Jefferson Street & Dunbar
Traffic Signal
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Jefferson Street & Avenue 52
Three Lane
Roundabout
$1,000,000
27.04%
$270,400
Jefferson Street & Avenue 53
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Jefferson Street & Avenue 54
Traffic Signal
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Citywide Central Conuol
$1,100,000
27.04%
$297,440
TOTAL $14,444,000
$9,291,840
February S, 2013 - Final 3-4
City o(La Ouinta - 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 are 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 Improvement - Sound Attenuation Walls
Location Costs of Walls at Developed
Property
East Madison at Trilogy $192,115
TOTALS $192,115
Table 3-6 shows the developer completed improvements with City Council approved Developer
Reimbursement Agreements (DRAB). In accordance with the approved agreements,
reimbursement will be provided when Transportation DIF funding becomes available and when
the project receives funding priority.
Table 3-6
Street System Improvement -Developer Reimbursement Agreements
Project
Tract
Improvement
DIF Eligible
Cost
Mountain View CC
30357
Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median (1/2
$627,972
Median) - Between Jefferson & Madison
14 -Foot Wide Landscape Median
Esplanade
29323-1
Improvements - Fred Waring Between Port
$103,083
Maria Road to Jefferson Street
Rancho La Quinta
29283
Avenue 50 Raised Landscape Median - Park
$239,000
Avenue to Orchard Lane
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median (1/2
Madison Club
33076
Median) - Madison Street to '/: Mile East of
$669,920
Madison Street and One Lane (Inside Lane)
Southside Street Improvements
Hideaway
29894-2
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median - All
$1,344,690
American Canal to Madison Street
Avenue 52 Street Improvements North Side
Mountain View CC
30357
Along Development's Southerly Boundary -
$112,723
Between Jefferson/ All American Canal
Clubhouse Apartments
SDP 2002-730
Avenue 52 Raised Landscape Median - All
$463,894
American Canal to Madison Street
Dune Palms Road - Landscaped Median
Sam's Club Retail
SDP 2005-824
Island (Highway 111 to South End of Parcel
$228,697
3, 1126.7 Ft. North of Avenue 48)
Madison Street - Two Lanes and Median
Madison Club
33076
Between Avenue 52 and 54 (Median
$1,394,665
Landscape on Future Separate Agreement)
Avenue 54 - Paved Painted Median Lane
Madison Club
33076
and One Inside Lane (Madison Street to
$524,010
Monroe Street
Total DIF Eligible
Developer Reimbursement Agreements:
$5,708,654
4 Cost ofwalls adjacent to developed progeny is incluid in the impact fee calculation.
February 5, 2013 -Final 3-5
City o(La Ouinta—Det elpoment Impact Fee Study
Table 3-7 shows the total cost of development -related capital improvement from Tables 3-1
through 3-6. The overall total in that table will be used as the basis for the impact fee calculation.
Table 3-7
Street System Improvements for Future Development - Summary by Type
Improvement Type
Development Related Costs
Major Arterials
$848,500
Primary/Secondary Arterials
$17,807,593
Bridges
$10,972,921
Traffic Signals
$9,291,840
Sound Attenuation
$192,115
Developer Reimbursement Agreements
$5,708,654
TOTAL
$44,821,623
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 3-8 shows the calculation of the unit cost per peak hour tap -mile. To establish that unit
cost, the total cost of development related improvements from Table 3-7 is divided by the
projected volume of peak hour trip -miles to be added by new development, from Table 2-2,
Section 2.
Table 3-8
Street System Improvements - Costs per Peak Hour Trip -Mile
Total Eligible Improvement
Costs
Added Peak Hour Tri, -Miles°
CosUPeak Hour Trip -Miles?
$44,821,623
1 103,709
$337.10
Table 3-9 shows the conversion of the cost per peak hour trip -utile from table 3-7 into
standardized impact fees per dwelling unit for each category of development. This conversion is
based on the essential number of peak hour trip -miles per unit of development for each land use
category. As discussed in Section 10, Implementation, we recommend that the impact fees be
formally adopted in terms of the cost per trip, as shown in Table 3-8.
5 See Table 3-6
6 See Table 2-2
Y hapmveseent cast per peak hour trip equals tom[ eligible improvement cost divided by the added peak hour trip miles. The cost per
peak hour trip has been adjusted down by 22%.
February 5, 2013 - Fina/ 3-6
City o(La Ouinta—Development Impact Fee Studv
Table 3-9
Standardized Impact Fees -Street Improvements
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Peak Hour trip-Miles/Unit
of Development
Cost/ Peak Hour
Trip. Mile
Fee/Unit of io
Development
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$337.10
$2,690
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$337.10
$2,690
Residential MFO
DU
4.90
$337.10
$1,652
Office/ Hospital
KSF
13.12
$337.10
$4,423
General Commercial
KSF
16.04
$337.10
$5,407
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
4.49
$337.10
$1,514
Public Facilities
ACRE
66.18
$337.10
$22,310
Schools
ACRE
7.54
$337.10
$2,542
Parks
ACRE
8.59
$337.10
$2,896
Golf Courses
ACRE
1.89
$337.10
$637
The standardized fees shown in Table 3-9 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:
Calculate the total cost allocated to each public facility category. Multiply the fee per
unit of development from Table 3-9 by the number of units of development shown in
Table 2-2. Divide that amount by the sum of all peak hour trip -miles generated by the
receiving group of private land use category. The resulting cost per peak hour trip -mile is
then added to the fees shown in table 3-9 for each of the receiving categories. Table 3-10
summarizes the adjustments to allocated cost per trip mile.
See Table 2-I, Notes 3,4 and 5
See Table 3-8
Fee per uniwrdevelop rat -peak Mur nip -miles per unit ordevelopinent x con per peak hour trip inile. Fees murded make roarer
dole,.
February S, 2013 - Final 3-7
CiN o(La Ouin[a - Development lmaacl Fee Studv
Table 3-10
Adiusted Cost Allocation
Land Use Category
Development
Ulopree
Initial
Cosr Trip
Hour Trip.
Mile
Public Faaility12
CosKrriP-hlile
Schools
Cosfll'rip
hlllel3
Parks Co1Vrrip
MHe
Adjust
Cost/Trip
Miles 15
Residential SFD
DU
$337.10
$16.95
$2.09
$356.14
Residential SPA
DU
$337.10
$16.95
$2.09
$356.14
Residential MFO
DU
$337.10
$16.95
$2.09
$356.14
Office/ Hospital
KSF
$337.10
$16.95
$354.06
General Commercial
KSF
$337.10
$16.95
$354.06
Tourist Commerdal
ROOM
$337.10
$16.95
$354.06
Public Facilities
ACRE
Reallocated
Schools
ACRE
Reallocated
Parks
ACRE
Reallocated
Golf Courses
ACRE
$337.10
$16.95
$354.06
Finally, the adjusted cost per peak hour trip -mile from Table 3-10 can be substituted for the initial
cost per peak hour trip -mile in Table 3-9 to arrive at the final adjusted impact fee per unit of
development. The adjusted fees are shown in Table 3-11 on the following page. The difference
between the initial fees and the adjusted fees can be seen by comparing the impact fees, in Tables
3-9 and 3-10.
11 See Table3-7
Reallocated Public Facilities cost=84 KSFoffetum public Facilities x 66.18 Peak Hour Tnp Miles per KSF x Initial
Allocation cf $297.98 per Peak Hour Trap Milal97,921 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving development =
an increase of $16.95 per Peak Hour Trp Mile for receiving developmeat
13 Reallocated Schools cost=0 Acres of Future Schools x 7.54 Peak Hour Trip Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation ofs297.98
per Peak Hour Trip Mile/61,313 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development
= an increase of 50.00 Per Peak Hour Trip Milc for receiving development
14 Reoliorated Parks cost= 50 Acres of Future Parks x 8.59 Peak Hour Top Miles per Acre x Initial Allocation of $297.98
per Peak Hour Trip Milesl61.313 Peak Hour Trip Miles generated by all receiving (residential only) development=an
nrcrcase of $2.09 per Peak Hour Trip Mile for receiving developmrnt
15 Adjusted cast per Peak Hour Trip Mile= the sum of initial cost per Peak Hour Trip Mile plus the reallocated public
facility, school and pork costs for each land use category
February 5, 2013 - Final 3-8
City ofLa Ouinta—Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3-11
Adjusted Standardized Impact Fees- Street Improvements
Land Use Category
Units of Des.
Peak Hour Trip
Mild)nitof
Dev.11
Adjusted
CosNPark Hour
Trip Mile"
Adjusted
Fedunitof
Dev.°
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$356.14
$2,842
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$356.14
$2,842
Residential MFO
DO
4.90
$356.14
$1,745
Office/ Hospital
KSF
13.12
$354.06
$4,645
General Commercial
KSF
16.04
$354.06
$5,679
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
1 4.49
1 $354.06
1 $1,590
Public Facilities
ACRE
66.18
$0
Schools
ACRE
7.54
$0
Parks
ACRE
8.59
$0
Golf Courses
ACRE
1.89
$354.06
$669
Table 3-12 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 3-12
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use Category
Units of Dev.
Adjusted Fee/Unit of
Dev. n
Future Unix
of Dec. 30
Impact Fee Revenue sl
Residential SFD
DU
$2,842
6322
$17,967,262
Residential SFA
DU
$2,842
773
$2,196,883
Residential MFO
DU
$1,745
960
$1,675,297
Office/Hospital
KSF
$4,645
518
$2,406,219
General Commercial
KSF
$5,679
1,370
7,780,304
Tourist Commercial
ROOM
$1,590
1,360
$2,162,006
Public Facilities
ACRE
$0
$0
Schools
ACRE
$0
$0
Parks
ACRE
$0
$0
Golf Courses
ACRE
$669
817
$546,708
$34,734,680
See Table 2-1, Notes 3,4 and 5.
See Tablc3-10.
Fee per unit ofdevelopment equals the peak hour trip miles per unit ofdevelopment lima the cost per peak hour trip mile.
Pecs are rounded m the nearest dollar. Note that the fees have been increased by a factorof0.0053 to incorporate the cost
oftheandly. (See Executive Summary).
See Table 3-11
Sec Table 2-2- Peak Hour Trips
Impact Fee Revenue=adjusted fee per unit of development x future units of development
February 5, 2013 - Final 3-9
City ofLa Ouinia — 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 Quints. Land (or fees in lieu of land) for future parks, will be acquired by the city from sub
dividers 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 the 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 Quints, are provided both by the City, and by the
Desert Recreation District (DRD). 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.
Table 4-1 lists La Quints's existing parks. Not included is the 845 -acre Lake Cahuilla Regional
Park, which is located in La Quints, but owned by Riverside County. Regional parks are not
considered in the calculation park impact fees.
February 5, 2013 - Final 4-1
City al la Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Table 4-1
Existing Parks
Park Name
Type Facility
Size Acres
Adams Park
Neighborhood Park
3.5
Civic Center Campus
Cormaunity Park
17.5
Desert Pride Park
Neighborhood Park
1
Eisenhower Park
Mini Park
0.5
Fritz Bums Park
Community Park
12
La Quinta Park
Community Park
18
La Quinta Community Park(Frances Hack
Community, Park
6.5
Monticello Park
Neighborhood Park
4
Pioneer Park
Neighborhood Park
3.2
Paige Middle School Sports Fields
Community Park
7
Saguaro Park
Mini Park
0.75
Avenue 50 Sports Complex
Community Park
16.75
Seasons Park
Neighborhood Park
5
Velasco Park
Mini Park
0.25
TOTAL
95.95
The existing level of service for parks in La Quinta will be defined in terns of acres of existing
developed park land per 1,000 residents. Table 4-2 computes the existing level of service. Policy
PR -1.2 in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan established a standard of 5.0
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, as shown
in Table 4-2, will be used to calculate the impact fees for parks and recreation facilities.
Table 4-2
Level of Service - Improved Park Acreage
Park Acreage r
June 2012 Population S
Acres/1,000 Population
95.95
59,338
1.62
C. DEMAND VARIABLE
As indicated above, population is used here as the variable representing the need for parks in La
Quints. 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)
See Table 4-1
Population figures used in this study are based on 100%occupancy of all existing dwelling units
February 5, 2013 - Final 4-2
City of La Ouima — 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.
Based upon a review of recent construction bids for Park construction in the region, an estimated
cost of $500,000 per acre will be used to calculate the park development impact fee. The
estimated cost used in this analysis covers park improvements such as landscape and irrigation,
picnic facilities, playgrounds, and sports fields. 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 calculated 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
Improvement Cost/Acre s
Acres/1,000
population °
Cost! Capita
Future Po .
Increase g
Total Cost to Build
Out
$500,000
1.62
$808.50
1 20,298
$16,411,011
Cast Estimate by City of to Quinti ConuuuNry Services Department.
See Table4-2
See Table 2-2
February 5. 2013 - Final 4-3
City ofLa Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
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 fee be formally adopted in terms of the cost per
capita shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-4
Standardized Impact Fees - Park Improvements
Land Use Type
Units of
Development
Demand/Unit of
Development
Cost/Unit of
Demand
Fee/Unit of s
Development
Residential SFD
DU
2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Residential SFA
DU
2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Residential MFO
DU
2.52
$808.50
$2,048
Table 4-5 projects total revenue from the park impact fees. That is the amount, in current dollars,
that would be collected from the future development to pay for park improvements.
Table 4-5
Project Impacted Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use Category
Unita of
Development
em v of
Development
Future Units of
Development to
Impact fee
Revenue 1
Residential SFD
DU
$2,048
6,322
$12,948,931
Residential SFA
DU
$2,048
773
$1,583,217
Residential MFO
DU
$2,048
960
$1,966,200
TOTAL
$16,498,347
4 See Table2-1,Nuu2
r See Tabk4-3
9 Fee per Unit of Development= Demand per Unit x Development. Cost per Unit of Demand. Fees rounded to nearest
dollar. Note that Were fees have been increased by fwtorof0.0053 to incoryomte the cost of this study (See Executive
stationary)
o Sce Teblc44
to See Table 2-2
11 Impact fee revenue= impact fee per unit of development x future units ofdevelopment
February 5, 2013 - Final 4-4
Ciro of r - Ouintn—Develooment lmnnct Fee Studv
SECTION 5
CIVIC CENTER IMPACT FEES
This section of the report addressed impact fees for the La Quinta Civic Center. The existing
Civic Center was originally constructed in 1993. As presented in Section 2, the City has
experienced considerable growth since 1993, which resulted in the need for an additional 22,000
square foot expansion of the original facility. The Civic Center expansion was completed in
April 2008. The expanded Civic Center should now be capable of serving the City's needs
through build out.
As with all impact fee funded public facilities, a long term collection period is needed to generate
the necessary impact fee funding share. In this case, the impact fee funds will not be completely
collected until "build -out" of the City. In order to meet the demands of existing and future
development, it was necessary to either loan funding from the City's General Fund and/or issue
long term revenue bonds to construct the Civic Center. The loans and revenue bonds will be paid
back annually as new development occurs and fees are collected.
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 July 1, 2012 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 out required facilities without
formally adopting a standard. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based
on the recently expanded 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 Quints, 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 generalized measure of development to
approximate service demand for purposes of calculating impact fees.
February 5, 2013 - Final 5-1
CiN o(La Ouinta — Deve(ooment Imonc[ Fee Studv
Table 5-1
Developed Acreage ( Excluding Public Facilities)
Land use Category Use
Developed Acreage
I
(Existing)
Developed Acreage
(FuNre) z
Developed Acreage
(Buildout) y
Residential SF Detached
4,453
1,665
6,118
Residential SF Attached)
530
172
702
Residential Multi I Other)
315
120
435
Office Including Hospitals)
78
54
132
General Commercial
384
143
527
Tourist Commercial
207
138
345'
Golf Courses 5%oftoralacrea e)
216
41
257
TOTALS
6,183
2,333
8,516
%of Total
72.61%
27.39%
100%
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 the total acreage.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
The original La Quinta civic center, which was completed in 1993, contained 33,000 square feet
of gross floor area. The City has experienced considerable growth since 1993. This new growth
resulted in the need for the anticipated 22,000 square feet expansion of the original facility. The
resulting 55,000 square foot building is now 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 recently completed expansion will
serve the City's needs through build out. Because the Civic Center serves both the 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 non -impact fee
contributions to the cost of the facility.
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of 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 27.39% of
total developed acreage at build out. Consequently, 27.39% 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
February 5, 2013 - Final 5-1
CiN.ff-Oulnta—Development(moat!Fee Studv
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 funds needs for impact fee calculations. The Civic Center
22,000 expansion is complete. The costs presented below are based on the actual project costs
assigned to the impact fee. The future funds needed for the Civic Center debt service attributable
to the Development Impact Fees (30%) have not been discounted because of the need to construct
the Civic Center expansion before all Civic Center impact fees 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
Cost Components
Total Cost
Future Fund Needs
Civic Center (Revenue Bonds) °
$11,382,746
$3,646,495
Civic Center (Infrastructure Fund cash outla )
$4,856,788
Civic Centergeneral Fund cash outlays)
$1,407,182
Future Civic Center Ex anion
$12,651,000
$12,651,000
Sub -Total
$30,297,716
$16,297,495
Less Developer Fees Collected
$5174 467
Future Development Shares
6 $8,299,967
$11,123,028
Table 5-2 summarizes Civic Center costs, and the portion of that cost to be funded in the future.
The costs eligible to be recovered through impact fees are based on the percentage of total cost
attributable to future development, based on the percentage of total demand created by that
development.
Based on pmaent value of deb service payments for the 1991 and the subsequent 1996 Refunding Bond, discounted
inflation at 3.5%per year.
Based on the actual canstmction cosh
Based on the 27.39% sham of total eligible cost. See Table 5-1
February 5, 2013 - Final 5-3
City afLa Ouinta -Development Impact Fee Study
E. IMPACT FEES
Table 5-3 shows the civic center future funding needs, from Tattle 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 Development Cost Share 7
Added Development Acres a
Cost Per Developed Acre
$8,299,967
2,333
$3,558
Table 5-4 shows the conversion of cost per developed acre from Table 5-3 into standardized
impact fees per unit of development for various land uses categories.
Table 5-4
Standardized Impact Fees - Civic Center
Land Use Category
Future Dev.
Acres 9
Cost/Dev.
Acre10
Cost for
Category 11
Future
Units of
Dev. 12
Unit of
Dev.
Fee/Unit
of Dev 3
Residential SFD
1,665
$3,558
$5.923,846
6,322
DU
$942
Residential SFA
172
$3,558
$611,953
773
DU
$796
Residential MFO
120
$3,558
$426,944
960
DU
$447
Office/ Hospital
54
$3,558
$192,125
518
KSF
$373
General Commercial
143
$3,558
$508,775
1,370
KSF
$373
Tourist Commercial
138
$3,558
$490,985
1,360
Room
$363
Golf Courses
41
$3,558
$145,339
817
Acre
$179
7 See Table S-2
a See Table5-1
9 See Table 2-2. For Golf Courses, developM acreage is assumed to=5h atonal acreage
la See Table 5-3
11 Cost for Category = Future Development Acres x Cast per Developed Acre. This column represents the total cost allocatcd
to each land use category
13 See Table 2-2
13 Fee per unit of Development — cost forcategory/future units of Development Fees,nundrrl to the nearest dollar. Now that
thesefees have been imusased by factorof0.0053 to incorporate the cost ofthis sandy. (See Executive Sulmnary)
February 5, 2013 - Final 5-4
City ofLa Ouinta— 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
Protected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use. Category
Units of
Development
Fee/Unit of w
Development
Future Units of
Development
Impact Fee
Revenue
Residential SFD
DU
$942
6,322
$5,955,243
Residential SFA
DU
$796
773
$615,196
Residential MFO
DU
$447
960
$429,207
Office/Hospital
KSF
$373
518
$193,143
General Commercial
KSF
$373
1,370
$511,471
Tourist Commercial
Room
$363
1,360
$493,588
Golf Courses
Acre
$179
817
$146,109
$8,343,957
See Table 5-4
See Table 2-2
"pa Fee Revenue= Impm Fee per unit ofdevelopment x future units of development
February 5, 2013 - Final 5-5
City of La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 6
LIBRARYIMPACT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future
development in La Quints. Library services in the City are currently provided by the Riverside
City -County Library System. The City of La Quinta recently completed the construction of a
new 20,000 square foot library facility within the Civic Center Campus. The new library facility
was paid for with a loan from the City Redevelopment Agency. It is intended that Fees collected
from new development will repay the loan and provide the revenue necessary to expand library
operations in the future. It is not clear at this time whether La Quints, will ultimately choose to
operate its own library, or continue its agreement with the Riverside City -County Library System
to operate the City owned library facility, 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 July 1, 2012 through
the build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan.
UN 0 Dili 3 WO *331 Ali Wy'
The public facilities element of the La Wma General Plan includes the following planning
standard for libraries: 0.5 square feet of library space per capita and 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 Quints. The adopted standard of 1.2 volumes per capita will be used for
library materials.
:M 1) N0 EleI tY141 R /\:311 sl.
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 and 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.
February 5. 2013 - Final 6-1
City of f - Ouinra—DeveJapment Impact Fee SMdv
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Table 6-1 shows cost for library facilities needed to meet the planning standard defined above for
the projected City of La Quints population build out.
Table 6-1
Library Costs
Component
Quantity
Total Cost
Build Out
Po ulafion
Cost Per Capita
Desi NConstruction
20000 GSF
$8,500,0001
79,636
$106.74
Land
2.0 Acres
$261,3602
79,636
$3.28
Materials
103,128 Volumes
$2,062,5603
79,636
$25.90
Total
$10,823,920
$135.92
It is generally accepted that the City may not legally charge impact fees to new development to
support a level of service higher than the level of service provided the existing community.
Otherwise, fees charged to new development could result in 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.
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
Land Use T e
yP
Units of
Development
Population/ Unit
of Development J
5
Cost Per Capita
Feel Unit of
Development 6
Residential SFD
DU
2.52
$135.92
$344
Residential SFA
DU
2.52
$135.92
$344
Residential MFO
DU
2.52
$135.92
$344
I The total cost presented has been adjusted to reflect the actual cost of de,up and the awarded constmetion contact
3 Based on a cost of $3.00 per square foot
3 Based on avenge cost of $20.00 per volume
See Table 2-1, Note
3 See Table 6-I
6 Fee per unit ofdevelopment= population per unit ofdevelopment x cost percapim. Fees mended to nearest dollar Note
that these fees have been increased by a faatorof0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (see Executive Summary)
February 5, 2013 - Final 6-2
Citv ofLa Ouinta - Development Impact Fee Study
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
Land/Use Category
Units of Dev
Fee/Unit of
Dev.7
Future Units of
Dev.a
Impact Fee
Revenue°
Residential SFD
DU
$344
6,322
$2,176,842
Residential SFA
DU
$344
773
$266,154
Residential MFO
DU
$344
960
$330,537
$2,773,534
See Table 6-2
See Table 2-2
Impact Fee Revmue- impam fee per unit ofdeveloprnmt x future units ofdeveloparmt
February 5. 2013 - Fina! 6-3
City o(La Ouinta—Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 7
COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for the community center facilities required to
serve future development in La Quinta. The City has three public facilities that function as
existing community center facilities, the multipurpose room and classrooms at the La Quints,
Senior Center, the multipurpose room at the La Quinta Museum, and the community room at the
La Quinta Boys and Girls Club.
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 July 1, 2012 through
build out of all development contemplated in the General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City has adopted a level of service standard for the 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
Existin r Level of Service - Community Center Facilities
Existin
Buildin
Area
Existing Po ulation
ExistingSquare
------------
Feet Per Ca its,
7,100
59,338
0.12
C. DEMAND VARUBLE
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.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Table 7-2 shows 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
Standardized Impact Fees - Communi Center Facilities
Cost Per Square Foo
[
Square Feet Per Ca its,
Cost Per Capita
$425.00
0.12
$50.85
Based on 5,300 sq ft muhi-purpose/class rooms at to Quints, Senior Center; 1,000 sq it multi -p Mose room at U Quinti
Museum; and 800 sq it community room at la Quinti Boys and Girls Club
- See Table2-1
a Cost provided by Detainment of Building and Safety
< See Table 7.1
February S, 2013 - Final 7-1
City ofLa Ouinta — Development impact Fee Study
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
Land Use
Units of
Development
Population/ Unit
of Dev. 5
Cost Per
Capita s
Fee/ Unit of
Development 7
Residential SFD
Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Residential SFA
Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Residential MFO
Dwelling Unit
2.52
$50.85
$129
Table 74 projects the 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
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Fee/Unit of
Developments
Future Units of
Development'
Impact Fee
Revenue10
Residential SFD
DU
$129
6,322
$814,453
Residential SFA
DU
$129
773
$99,580
Residential MFO
DU
$129
960
$123,669
$1,037,702
5 See Table 24, Note
a See Table 7-2
7 Fee per unit ofdevelopment--population per unit ofdevelopmentxcost per capiu. Fees roundM to nearest dollar. Note
that these fees have been incteased by a factor of0.0053 m incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive Smru stry)
x See Table 7-3
9 See Table 2-2
to hnpact Fee Revenue= Impact Fee per unit of Development x future units ofdevelopment
Februmy 5, 2013 - Final 7-2
Citv o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 8
MAINTENANCE FACILITY IMPACT FEES
This section of the report addresses impact fees for maintenance facilities required to serve future
development in La Quints. At present, the City's corporation yard is no longer meeting the
existing need caused by new development. The City's corporation yard requires expansion to
meet the demands of existing and future development.
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 forme for
this analysis is from July 1, 2012 through build out of all development contemplated in the
General Plan.
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE
For the type 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. The level of service used in establishing impact fees will be based
on 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.
:M 11010 KIN IY/:\N/\:311 Dl.
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 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 the street maintenance accounts 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 supports park maintenance, will
be allocated in the same manner as park facilities costs, using population as the demand variable.
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
The existing corporation yard facilities are not adequate to meet the City's current needs. The
existing level of service, stated in terms of the City's investment in current facilities, is calculated
in Table 8-1.
February 5, 2013 - Final 8-1
City o(La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
Table 8-1
Estimated Value of Existing City Corporation Yard
Cost Component
Estimated Cost
Site— land Value (126,700 sqft $7.50)
$950,250
Existing Corporation Yard Facilities
$3,768,443
Total Estimated Cost of Existing City Corporation Yard:
$4,718,693
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 cost
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
Cost Per Unit of Demand - Street and park Maintenance Facilities
Type of Asset
Current t
Demand
Cost of Existing
Facilities
Cost per Unit of
I Demand
Street Maintenance
262,1742
$3,774,954
$14.40
Park Maintenance
59,338'
$943,739
$15.90
Totals
$4,718,693
E. IMPACT FEES
Tables 8-3 and 8-4 convert the cost per unit of demand from Table 8-2 into impact fees per unit
of development for street and park maintenance facilities, respectively.
Based on Public Works Department estimate that 80%of facilities are used for street maintenance and 20%for park
See Table 2-1, Demaral for street improvements is statcW in teens ofpeak hour trip miles. Parks, schools, and other public
facilities are not included in this analysis because demand created by those users is ultimately andbutable to the private
development served by them uses.
See Table &I, Demand for park maintenance is stated in terms of population.
February 5, 2013 -Final 8-2
Cite orl - Ouintn—D------ment Imoact Fee Studv
Table 8-3
Standardized Impact Fees - Street Maintenance Facilities
Land/Use Category
Units of
Dev
Demand unit of
Development
Cost/ Unit of
Demand
Fee/Unit of s
Development
Residential SFD
DU
7.98
$14.40
$116
Residential SFA
DU
7.98
$14.40
$116
Residential MFO
DU
4.90
$14.40
$71
Office/Hospital
KSF
13.12
$14.40
$190
General Commercial
KSF
16.04
$14.40
$232
Tourist Commercial
Room
4.49
$14.40
$65
Golf Courses
Acre
1.89
$14.40
$27
Table 8-4
Standardized Impact Fees — Park Maintenance Facilities
Land/Use Category
Units of
Dev
Demand Unit of
Development
Cost/ Unit o of
Demand
Fee/Unit of s
Development
Residential SFD
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
Residential SFA
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
Residential MFO
DU
2.52
$15.90
$40
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.
Demand is measured by peak hour mp miles. See Table 2-1, Notes 4 and 5
See Table 8-2
Fee per unit ofdevelopment= demand units per unit of development x cost per unit ofdemand. Fees rounded to nearest
dollar. Note that these fees must be increased by a factorof0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study (See Executive
Summary)
Demand is measured by population per unit ofdevelopment. See Table 2-I, Note 3
See Table 8-2
Fee per unit ofdevelopmeat= demand units per unit ofdevelopment x cost per unit ofdemand. Fees mundM to nearest
dollar. Nom that these fees have been increased by a factor of0.0053 to incorporate the cost of this study. ( See Executive
Summary)
February 5, 2013 - Final 8-3
City ofLa Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
Table 8-5
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Developments
Land/Use Category
Units of
Dev
Combined Development
Fee/Unit of
10
Future Units of
Development
aent
Impact Fee
Revenue "
Residential SFD
DU
$156
6,322
$984,981
Residential SFA
DU
$156
773
$120,434
Residential MFO
DU
$111
960
$106,768
Office/Hospital
KSF
$190
518
$98,374
General Commercial
KSF
$232
1,370
$318,085
Tourist Commercial
Room
$65
1,360
$88,390
Golf Courses
Acre
$27
817
$22,351
$1,739,383
Combined fee per unit ofdevelo,rum = sums ofstreet and park maintenance fees per unit of development from Tables 8-3
and 84
See Table 2-2
Impact Fee Rcvenue = Impact Fre per unit ofdevelopment x future units of development
February S, 2013 - Final 8-4
Cio, of La Ouin[n — Develooment lmuact Fee Studv
SECTION 9
FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
This section addresses impact fees for fire protection facilities required to serve future
development in La Quints. Fire protection in La Quinta is the responsibility of the Riverside
County Fire Department, and is contracted to the California Department of Forestry. Three fire
stations exist in La Quinta at present. The City's North Area Station was constructed with funds
that were advanced, or loaned to the DIF, from other funding sources. The newest of these
stations is the recently constructed Village Cove Area Station which was constructed with County
Fire Credit Funds. The Village/Cove Area Station did not receive loans from any other funding
source and is no longer considered in the calculation of future Fire Protection Facility Impact
Fees.
A fourth City fire station is in the site selection process. The fourth station is intended to serve
areas of the City that are currently underserved, as well as, new development in the southeastern
parts of the City and the unincorporated County areas, specifically the Vista Santa Rosa
community.
A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME
Although individual fire stations have specific service areas where they are designated to provide
first response 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 July 1, 2012 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 to
facility needs. The number of fire stations needed to serve an area with acceptable response times
is typically determined by analysis of specific conditions within the area served. The number of
fire stations needed to serve La Quints at build -out has been determined by the City, and will be
used as the basis for the impact fee analysis.
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
February 5, 2013—Final 9-1
Ciro ol'La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
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.
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 we 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 cost 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
acreage used in this section.
Table 9-1
Develoned Acreage (Excluding Public Facilities)
Land Use Category
Developed
Acreage
(existing)
Developed
Acreage
(future)
Developed Acreage
(build out)'
Residential SFD
4,453
1,665
6,118
Residential SFA
530
172
702
Residential MFO
315
120
435
Office(Including Hospital)
78
54
132
General Commercial
384
143
527
Tourist Commercial
207
138
345
Golf Courses 5% of total acreage)
216
41
257
Total
6,183
2,333
8,516
D. FACILITY NEEDS AND COST ALLOCATION
Three fire stations operate in the City of La Quinta, at present. One city -owned station was paid
for by a major developer. The second station, the Village/Cove Area Station was recently
replaced with County Fire Credit Funds. Based on running distances and projected response
times, a third station serving the northern portion of the City was constructed with funds that were
advanced, or loaned to the Fire Protection Facilities DIF, from other funding sources. In addition,
a fourth station is currently in the planning and site selection process and is intended to serve the
southeastern portion of the City and portions of the unincorporated County, specifically the Vista
Santa Rosa community.
See Table2-1
See Table 2-2
See Table 2d
February 5,1013—Final 9-2
GiN uff - Ouinta-Develoom-n ' onct Fee Study
The City's goal is to locate the fourth fire station as near as possible to Monroe and Avenue 60.
It is intended to have a primary service radius of 1.5 miles, however its service area, like most
stations will end up being rectangular. It will enhance services by decreasing response times to
all areas of the city located south of an east/west line drawn approximately one half mile north of
Avenue 58. The service area for the fourth station is split between the City and the County at
50% each. The station planned at present would be approximately 7,000 square feet in size on
approximately 1.5 acres. The project cost of the fourth station is estimated at $4,397,000.
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in allocating fire protection facility 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. Table 9-2 estimates the cost of future
fire protection facilities allocated to future development.
Table 9-2
Future Fire Station Cosa
Facility
Cost of Future
Facilities
Future Developed
Acres
Cost/Developed
Acre
North Area Stations
$3,786,288
Prior Impact Fee Contribution
($2,167,664)
Southeast Area Stations
$2,198,500
$3,817,124
2,333
$1,636.25
E. IMPACT FEES
As indicated previously, the demand variable to be used in the allocation of fire facility costs is
developed acreage. The resulting cost per developed acre is the basis for establishing impact fees
for fire protection facilities. Table 9-3 converts the cost per acre into a fee per unit of
development.
See Table 2-2. Does not include Public Facilities. Schools, Parks, aW 95%of Golf Course Acreage
Reflects the actual cog for land, site development, design, construction, and thecost of anew engine. Costs in cannot
dollars
7,000 SF /1.5 acres - costs split 5011. with County of Riverside
February 5, 2013 —Final 9-3
ON ofia Ouinm—Develapment Impact Fee Study
Table 9-3
Standardized Intoner Fees - Fire Protection Facilities
Land Use Category
Units of
Development
Acre/Unit of
Development r
s
Cost/Acre
Fee/Unit of
Development
Residential SFD
DU
0.26
$1,636.25
$4333
Residential SFA
DU
0.22
$1,636.25
$366
Residential WO
DU
0.13
$1,636.25
$206
Office (Including Hospital)
KSF
0.10
$1,636.25
$171
General Commercial
KSF
0.10
$1,636.25
$172
Tourist Commercial
Room
0.10
$1,636.25
$167
Golf Courses (5% of total acreage)
Acre
0.05
$1,636.25
$82
Total
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.
Table 94
Projected Impact Fee Revenue from Future Development
Land Use Category
Units
Development
nt
Feeof
re
Development
Future Units of
Development 11
Impact Fee
Revenue n
Residential SFD
DU
$433
6,322
$2,738,794
Residential SFA
DU
$366
773
$282,926
Residential MFO
DU
$206
960
$197,391
Office/Hospital
KSF
$171
518
$88,826
General Commercial
KSF
$172
1,370
1 $235,224
Tourist Commercial
Room
$167
1,360
$226,999
Golf Courses
Acre
$82
817
$67,195
$3,837,355
See Table 2-2. Average acres per unit = total acres/total units for each land use type
See Table 9-1
Fee per Units of Development =Acres per unit of Development x Cast per Acres. Fees assented to nearest dollar. Note that
thesefees hovebmnineroasebyahctorof0.0053toimoryomtelhewstofthisswdy.(See Executive Summary)
See Table 9-3
See Table 2.2
Impact Fee Revenue= Impact Fee per unit ofdevelopment x future units ofdevdopment
February 5, 2013—Final 9-4
City o(La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
SECTION 10
IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of
development impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of
impact fees recommended herein.
A. ADOPTION
Adopt a resolution amending Resolution 2008-061 to implement the changes reflected in this
update. For reasons discussed below, each impact fee should be adopted as a charge per unit of
service, rather than as scheduled 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.
\�u'!f�! 691 Y,7:f11�U7�1
Several requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 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, it is recommended that the adopted 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.
It should also be 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 the building may have
below average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly
low demand.
February 5, 2013 - Final 10-1
City o(La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Studv
Imposition of Fees. Under Section 66001, when the City imposes establishes, increases, or
imposes a mitigation fee it must make findings relative to items 1-3b, 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 reasonable relationship between:
The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed;
The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed and;
The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development
project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on the impact fee study, and this study is
intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. Acwrding 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 the 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, of the first dwelling unit completed.
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 constrction 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/grading 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, or upon issuance of grading permits for golf courses, Section 66007 provides that the
city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that the
contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.
February 5, 2013 - Final 10-2
City o(La Ouinta —Development Impact Fee Study
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 should exceed 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.
hnerest earned on 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 other City funds to
supplement anticipated DIF revenue shortfalls in the early years of the program.
These loans will be paid back to the City as Development Impact Fees become available. Interest
on these loans may be charged at a rate based upon the quarterly average interest rate, or the
City's investment fund rate earned by the City's investment pool.
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 expanded and the amount
of the expenditures of each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the
public improvement that was funded with fees
February 5, 2013 - Final 10-3
City o(La Ouinta — Development Impact Fee Study
Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the City deternvnes 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 expanded
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 statement is 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
yens, or make findings to justify a continued need for money. Otherwise, those funds had to be
refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways.
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 uncomndtted:
• 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 appropriate 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 determined 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 the procedures specified in the statute.
February 5, 2013 - Final 10-4
City ofLa Ouinia — Development Impact Fee Studv
Cost 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, updating 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 the plan most 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 cost 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.
Annual Update of Impact Fees 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 the 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 fees 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 to cost estimates. Fees
must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly
expended.
February 5, 2013 - Final 10-5
APPENDIXI
DETAILED COST ESTIMATED
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Appendix -1
MAJOR ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
October -12
Location
Cost
FRED WARING DRIVE
Washin on Street to Adams Street
$848,500
TOTAL FRED WARING DRIVE
$848,500
TOTAL ALL MAJOR ARTERIALS 1 $848,500
Februay 5, 3013 -Finn! Appendix (l of 33)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Major Arterial
Project: Fred Waring Drive (Washington St. to Adams Street)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island landscape, irrigation and low level lighting
between Washington St. and Adams Street.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1 $15,000.00
$15,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1 $20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1 $5,000.00
$5,000.00
4
LANDSCAPE
SF
42000 $5.50
$231,000.00
5
IRRIGATION
SF
42000 $4.35
$182,700.00
6
ELECTRICAL
SF
42000 $5.50
$231,000.00
SUB TOTAL
$684,700.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design,
$71,000.00
Ins ection(festin /Surve :
$69,000.00
Cit Admin:
$35,000.00
Professional:
$51,000.00
Contingency:
$140,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE:
$1,050,700.00
Total DIF SHARE: $848,500.00
Developer Bonds: $202,200.00
Febramy 5, 20/3 - Fina! Appendix 1 (2 of 23)
PRIMARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS
SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 2013
Location
Cost
ADAMS STREET
$793,534
lHighway 111 to So. Bridge Approach
$720,469
TOTAL ADAMS STREETI
$720,469
MADISON STREET
West Side South of Avenue 54
Avenue 52 to Avenue 54
$793,534
Avenue 50 to Avenue 52
$1,762,337
Avenue 60 to Avenue 62
$1,888,038
TOTAL MADISON STREET
$4,443,909
MONROE STREET
West Side South of Avenue 54
$689,751
West Side South of Avenue 56
$541,248
West Side South of Avenue 58
$492,000
East Side South of Avenue 60
$855,200
TOTAL MONROE STREET
$2,578,199
AVENUE 50
Washington Street to Evac Channel
138,850
North Side West of Jefferson Street
123,804
North Side West of Madison Street
676,964
TOTAL AVENUE 50
$939,618
AVENUE 52
660LF W. of Madison St to 1,320LF W of Madison St. $290,540
TOTAL AVENUE 52 $290,540
AVENUE 58 Extension
Avenue 58 south to the northern border of Coral Canyon
$1,730,953
TOTAL AVENUE 52
$1,730,953
AVENUE 62
Monroe Street to Madison Street
$5,952,644
TOTAL AVENUE 62
$5,952,644
F L MARY/SECONDARY ARTERIALS 1 $1'£;807; 3 i3 of 23,
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Secondary Arterial
Project: Adams Street Traffic Signal and Street Improvements (Highway 111 to Adams St. Bridge)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island curb,
Highway 111 and the south Adams St. Bridge approach.
landscape and irrigation between
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY UNIT
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIFCOST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
4
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
LS
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
5
SAWCUT
LF
3,100
$2.00
$6,200.00
6
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
850
$30.00
$25,500.00
7
CONSTRUCT6"CURB
LF
2,670
$12.00
$32,040.00
8
CONSTRUCT 6'WIDE SIDEWALK
SF
500
$5.50
$2,750.00
9
CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
370
$15.00
$5,550.00
10
CONSTRUCT 10" FULL DEPTH AC
SF
1 2,670
$8.00
$21,360.00
11
2" GRIND AND OVERLAY (2- WIDE)
SF
5,340
$2.50
$13,350.00
12
CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL
DRIVEWAY APPROACH WITH
ACCESS RAMPS
EA
1
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
13
CONSTRUCT 4" AC 16" AB
SF
31900
$5.00
$19,500.00
14
SIGNING AND STRIPING
SF
97,800
$0.25
$24,450.00
15
INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EA
1
$180,000.00
$180,000.00
16
LANDSCAPE
SF
7,500
$5.50
$41,250.00
17
IRRIGATION
SF
7,500
$4.50
$33,750.00
18
1 STAMPED CONCRETE
SF
3,000
$5.50
1
$16,500.00
SUB TOTAL
$502,200.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
$50,220.00
Ins eclioNTeslin /Surve :
$48,964.50
cityAdmin:
$25,110.00
Contin enc :
$93,974.18
Total Estimate:
$720,468.68
Februar S, 1013 -Final Appendic 1 N of 231
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial
Project: Dune Palms Road (Whitewater River to Westward Ho Drive)
Description
The proposed improvements include the reconstruction of the east half of the roadway including paved median,
travel lanes, bike path and sidewalk. The improvements may require demolition or relocation of existing structures
constructed within the City owned right of way. Undergrounding utilities will be required.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY UNIT
TOTAL
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1 $40,000.00
$40,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1 $40,000.00
$40,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1 $30,000.00
$30,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
4800 $30.00
$144,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1260 $2.00
$2,520.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1260 $15.00
$18,900.00
7
4" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
50400 $4.50
$226,800.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2 $500.00
$1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4 $300.00
$1,200.00
10
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF`
50400 $0.250
$12,600.00
11
SIDEWALK
SF
7,680 $5.50
$42,240.00
12
GARDEN WALL
LF
1,000 $70.00
$70,000.00
13
RELOCATE POWER POLE NO UG
EA
7 $25,000.00
$175,000.00
14
RELOCATE POWER POLE WITH U
EA
2 $45,000.00
$90,000.00
15
UN -ANTICIPATED COSTS
LS
1 $450,000.00
$450,000.00
SUB TOTAL:
$1,344,860.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
Ins ection/Testin /Surve :
City Admin:
Contin enc :
Total Estimated Cos[:
$134,486.00
$131,123.85
$67,243.00
$251,656.93
$1,929,369.78
Februa,y 3. ?0(3 - Final
Appendix 1!i a/'__>3/
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Miles (Seeley Avenue to Dune Palms Road)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median island,
median island landscape, and irrigation.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS I
QUANTITY
UNIT I ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$30,000.00 $30,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.00 $30,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00 $20,000.00
4
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
7000
$2.00 $14,000.00
5
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
3000
$30.00 $90,000.00
6
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
7000
$12.00 $84,000.00
7
4.5' AC OVER 6" AS
SF
7000
$5.00 $35,000.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVES
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
10
SIGNING AND STRIPING
SF
14000
$0.25 $3,500.00
7
LANDSCAPE
SF
40000
$8.50 $260,000.00
8IRRIGATION
SF
40000
$4.00 $160,000.00
SUB TOTAL
1 $729,300.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design: $72,930.00
Inspection/Testing/Survey: $56,520.75
City Admin: $36,465.00
Contin enc : $89,521.58
Total Estimate: $984,737.33
Developer Bonds: $315,818.00
Development Impact Fee: $668,919.33
Total Fundin $984,737.33
Februw c 5, 2013 -Final Appendix 1 (6 of23)
CIT' OF LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial
Project: Madison Street (Avenue 52 to Avenue 54)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of median landscape and irrigation between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 on
Madison Street.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNITE BILE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$
40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
IS
1
$
30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
IS
1
$
30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
500
$
30.00 $ 15,000.00
5
LANDSCAPE
SF
71200
$
6.50 $ 317,455.00
6
IRRIGATION
SF
71200
$
4.00 $ 120,675.00
SUB -TOTAL
$ 553,130.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
1
Desi n: $ 55,313.00
Ins eclionfTestin /Sune : $ 53,930.18
City Admin: $ 27,656.50
Contingency: $ 103,504.45
TotalEstimate: $ 793,534.13
February 5, 2013 - Final
Appendix 1 /7 of 23)
CITY OF U OUINTA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
PzGea Ty.: P1,A,AnWaI
Pz01ec1: Meds.O 5.1 (An,. W b Avenue 52)
Deem non
The ploWsaa Impmvmenls include Doe Rmzrseucmn of Maauon Sham W a Pfimen alanal - A eWaa.a, mcNan9 mjusbn9 M.
OWMNna 000$6. Mw UAM Mnes. bMe lanai, Mont. goner, sYenik. awed curb meco n Island. mWYn Wan landscape and I.,
ma proNsl Ls ianOYapmeorea by Ne c'Nea pl La Ouinla dna Into. me Gly m Mdi0 A senin9 as'Lem A,nW TheGryblb QuMu
I. respWsena fort S, 010e Sana Iba imprwamanL
1]EM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
OUPMIIY UNIT I
COST
TOTAL
COST
CVAG
]5%EL1G@LE
UOUINTA
COSI51gRE
134510
LOST $HARE
1
MoI.MoMn
IS
1
$275,000.01
$275,00000
$206.25000
$3dH]Sp0
531.]]500
2
TruMo Cmhd
IS
1
$183.00000
8183.00000
$V]2500D
522,0]8,0
522.6]500
S
..,Lonna
LS
1
$37,000.03
$1]10000
$2]]5000
$d 62500
Sa62500
Wdler Pulubon Conbq
IS
1
$37,00000
$37.00000
1 $27750,001
$d SOOI
$9.62500
5
Ion MIa Aspbah
TON
13.0.
$75.00
$9]9,50000
S]3662500
512243]50
$122.43]50
6
Rubbenzed AC
TON
4.2aO
$90.001$500.NO900
W000
$256.200.0,
$,)0000
$9).]0000
8
8'CIa.S IIA.
CY
11,893
S.
$00000
$2618]500
S43812%
80361250
7
Cunt and Gullet
LF
12.466
$1100Y000
$11218500
1619].50
1819)50
6
Siaewlk
8F
a6...
$4.003300D
U.
$936[0.00
$93.68000
9
Wndcap Ramps
EA
10
$2.50000.00000
000
$1250300
$12.000
10
AC �W
LF
1.340
$8900.n000
880900,
ST..00
SI...0
11
0 Moa aopoecn
EA
S
w..DODOACT
$1500000
52.50x00
3250000
12
Lrom GuBer
SF
2.760
$10aa.60000
SIT 7000D
$3,1..
$31. 00
13
1 ,..p05M G'aniW
$F
37.100
$1900,10000
$2]62500
34837`an
898375,
14
Damage Improvements
LS
1
SOILOM000000.
$3]5.000.,0
62800.00
$62.50000
I$
Roadway Excava4on
LY
24.000
$15.0000000
$2]450000
$45 7`1.x0
845 7`90.0,
TV
Cola%ane.,fell C. -On
OF
29.130
$1008000
$21.09].50
3.51625
87.51,.25
P
Enhy O,,,n,oy
EA
4
$5.000.0000000
$15,00 OD
$250000
E250000
1B
MrysI Si, MannoleWGada
FA
1
$$WAD500.00
$375.,0
250
$62.50
19
ftamoverRebnb Fen.
LF
6M5
$1200.340
TO
$40005 DD
88.68250
$888].$29
Ramave Existing Wall
LF
111
S^A.00880.00
$4.162.50
$693]5
$693.]5
21
R... Signs
EA
19
52,,00
53.90000
$285000
Sa]5.00
Sm500
22
RemoveAmplaz4 Drop Fq1
EA
1
$1.00000
31.00000
$]5000
512500
$12500
23
Rempve Edati1195aevalk
SF
648
W80
839880
829210
546.60
54860
24
Remave EMsI OMwp
$F
1,]>]
WWI
1566.20
$]9965
51]328
51]328
25
Remove Naadxad
LF
1.
$00009.30000
84.]2500
2fi
... WiLm
EA
3
$2. DO$]50.00
Sfi250
$93]5
$93]5
27
RWWve SNOOP Curb and Gutter
LF
1,.5
$500%,4500
$508125
$848.
$8a6A8
28
RemoaB EN56o .. G.,
3F
1.404
$0 so8582.90
631.60
ID530
$10530
29
Trac Signal at On NMlaesdon M Madison and Avenue W
IS
1
$2500.0000000
$167.50000
%3115000
331150On
30
Traffic 98100 at. Wena.. W Madsen and Avenue 52
IS
1
U5000000.00000
$16].50000
$3115DO)
.1 1.,O
31
C wWeW$opd
L$
1
$36.61700.E1].00
$22462]5
5]].0
457713
32
GmNp and OuSol
LS
1
U0000000.00000
$1500000
$2,00,.00
$2.50000
33
USN.R FaO (500 OBW EO. Ea4rMb for Cann)
L$
1
$563100003.005.
$,IO 2"000
$]2.8]500
5]28]500
34
Adj..., Vabeb GMe
FA
1]
$250004,25000
$3.10750
$53115
$53115
35
M'151S.IMaM101aW@add
EA
18
$1.0000018000.00
$1350000
5225000
.15000
36
ReA[ab &owOX
EAW.1
.000.005.,00.00
$3]50.00
$62500
$62503T
IFNOSCAPE
SF55.50400000
$O.OD
$132.MO OD
$,n.wo36
IRRIGATION
SFW50EV00.
WW
$8400000
SBa.00039
Canal hn mv....
LS.000.00o
0000
$1,425.000
W3]50000
823],500.$UB
TOTALLONSTRUCTION MST.92169.
54,911232.05
$1.140]1869
$114,]1869
1]15Q013
Costs:
Dasl n:sLzaz. 5609.9.00 $12468150
5urve:5], 431 A8 135)3.91Esbmaled$oft
Admin:59.0334 0080775.2, $m.95416uisillon'.941..,0 1.12. So $186.]5000
an :68.14.51 $1.1]8.88435 5186.194.06
sdmale: 512030.1692 50,50549444 $1.]62,13]41
CVAG Coranolon]5%of El lbls C -C
CI Dl loon, Canolou,o n 125°¢o(eli bre ES Iu550°R olio¢! Ible 5056)'.
C" of La Ouinla Conhibunon 125°.a oral) Ole cosh Ns W°/° olinali IOIe c -I
Total Conuioution:
$124.00150
$
8196.19406
$1,]62.13]91
W505 ON d9
$1,]6233241
8f )82332,41
$12030169.2]
Februmy 3, 2013 - Finn! appendix 1 (8 of 33)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial A
Project: Madison Street -Avenue 60 to Avenue 62
Description
The proposed improvements Will extend Madison Street from Avenue 60 to Avenue 62. The roadway is identified
within the City's General Plan Amendment 2008-12 as a Modified Secondary Arterial A. Ultimate improvements
include crossing Bureau of Reclamation Dike No. 4, south of Avenue 60. New Development (Transportation DIF) is
responsible for the portion of the improvement between Avenue 60 and the BOR Dike No. 4.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT I
COST
ELIGIBLE
DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
40000
$30.00
$1,200,000.00
5
SAWCUTPAVEMENT
LF
200
$2.00
$400.00
6
6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
10400
$15.00
$156,000.00
7
6" MEDIAN CURB
LF
10000
$12.00
$120,000.00
8
4" AC OVER 6" AS
SF
208000
$4.50
$936,000.00
9
DRAINAGE AT DIKE CROSSING LS
1
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
10
SIGNING AND STRIPINGSF
208000
$0.25
$52,000.00
11
SIDEWALK
SF
68640
$5.50
$377,520.00
12
LANDSCAPE
SF
45600
$6.50
$296,400.00
13
IRRIGATION
I SF 1
45600
$4.001
$182,400.00
SUBTOTAL:l
$3,495,720.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
inspection/Testing/Surve :
City Admin:
Contin enc :
Total Estimate:
$349,572.00
$270,918.30
$774,786.00
$429,099.63
$4,720,095.93
Notes:
IF -Less Anticipated Adjacent Developer Conditioned
Im rovements: -$2,832,057.56
11 Total DIE El, ible
Improvements: $1,888,038.37
1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions
of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construct approximately 60%
of the proposed improvements.
Februmy 5. 1013 - Final Appendix 1 19 ofldl
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 54)
Description
The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards,
constructing a second travel lane, curb and gutter, one-half median curb, sidewalk, landscape and irrigation from
Avenue 54 south to the north property line of the Estates; and from the south property line of the Estates to PGA
West -Greg Norman.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$35,000.00 $45,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.00 $40,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00 $40,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
4800
$30.00 $144,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
2000
$2.00 $4,000.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
2000
$15.00 $30,000.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1800
$12.00 $21,600.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
68000
$5.00 $340,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
4
$800.00 $3,200.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF'
68000
$0.250 $17,000.00
12
SIDEWALK
SF
12,000
$5.50 $66,000.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
12,600
$6.50 $81,900.00
14
IRRIGATION
SF
12,600
$4.00 $50,400.00
15
RELOCATE POWER POLE
EA
10
$12,500.00 $125,000.00
SUBTOTAL
$1,009,300.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
Ins ection/Testin /Surve :
City Admin:
Contin ency:
Total Estimate:
$100,930.00
$98,406.75
$50,465.00
$188,865.26
$1,447,967.01
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
Febrwvy 3. 2013 - final Appenda 1 l10 of 13/
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 56)
Description
The proposed improvements include construction of center median curb, landscape and irrigation in the west half
of Monroe Street from Avenue 56 to the south property line of the Palms Country Club, approximately 2,640
linear feet.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
I UNITS I
QUANTITY1
UNIT I TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$20,000.00 $20,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00 $20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1550
$30.00 $46,500.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
5500
$2.00 $11,000.00
6
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
2800
$12.00 $33,600.00
7
4.5' AC OVER 6" AB
SF
5500
$5.00 $27,500.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
10
SIGNING a STRIPING
SF•
5500
$0.2501 $1,375.00
11
LANDSCAPE
I SF 1
19,000 1
$6.501 $123,500.00
12
IRRIGATION
I SF
19,000 1
$4.001 $76,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $377,275.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n:
Ins ection/Testing/Surve :
City Admin:
Contin enc :
Total DIF Eligible Cost:
$37,727.50
$36,784.31
$18,863.75
$70,597.58
$541,248.15
February 5, 1013 -Finn! Appendix I (II of 33)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial -A
Project: Monroe Street (West Side South of Avenue 58)
Description
The proposed improvements include adjusting the centerline profile to meet urban drainage standards,
constructing to additional travel lanes, bike lane, and curb and gutter from Avenue 58 to Andalusia.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT I TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$35,000.00 $35,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$30,000.00 $30,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00 $25,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
3400
$30.00 $102,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1330
$2.00 $2,660.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1330
$15.00 $19,950.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1300
$12.00 $15,600.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
44200
$5.00 $221,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF'
44200
$0.250 $11,050.00
12
SIDEWALK
SF
8,000
$5.50 $44,000.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF
10,000
$6.50 $65,000.00
14
IRRIGATION
SF
10,000
$4.001 $40,000.00
15
RELOCATE POWER POLES
EA
6
$12,500.001 $75,000.00
SUBTOTAL:J $689,060.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $88,906.00
Inspection/-resting/Survey: $67,183.35
Cit Admin: $34,453.00
Contin enc : $128,940.35
Total Estimate: $988,542.70
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
Febra.ny 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (12 of 23)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial - C
Project: Monroe Street (East Side South of Avenue 60)
Description
The proposed improvements include constructing two
median curb, median island landscape and irrigation.
northbound
travel lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$50,000.00 $50,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$40,000.00 $40,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$40,000.00 $40,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
6000
$30.00 $180,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
2600
$2.00 $5,200.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
2600
$15.00 $39,000.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
3900
$12.00 $46,800.00
8
4" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
67600
$4.50 $304,200.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
FA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF'
67600
$0.250 $16,900.00
12
8' SIDEWALK I
SF 1
22,500 1
$5.501 $123,750.00
13
ILANDSCAPE I
SF 1
22,800 1
$6.501 $148,200.00
14
IRRIGATION I
SF 1
22,800 1
$4,001 $91,200.00
SUBTOTAL: 1 $1,088,050.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $108,805.00
Inspection/Testin /Surve : $106,084.88
City Admin: $54,402.50
Contingency:$203,601.36
Total Estimate: $1,560,943.73
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future
conditions of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a
portion of the street and pedestrian improvements.
Februmy 5, 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (13 oj'13)
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - B
Project: Avenue 50 (Washington Street to Evac Channel)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of two additional travel lanes, median curb, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, median island landscape, irrigation and electrical, from Washington St. to the Evacuation Channel.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT I TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$30,000.00 $30,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$25,000.00 $25,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00 $20,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
6000
$30.00 $180,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1350
$2.00 $2,700.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1350
$15.00 $20,250.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1200
$12.00 $14,400.00
8
4.5' AC OVER 6" AB
SF
27000
$5.00 $135,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
11SIGNING&STRIPING
SF'
27000
$0.250 $6,750.00
12
SIDEWALK
SF
8,000
$5.50 $44,000.00
13
ILANDSCAPE
SF
7,200
$6.501 $46,800.00
14
1IRRIGATION
SF
7,200 1
$4.001 $28,800.00
SUBTOTALJ $526,500.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Design IF $52,650.00
Inspection/Testin /Survey: $51,333.75
City Admin: $26,325.00
Contingency:$98,521.31
Total Estimate: $755,330.06
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions
of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the
street and pedestrian improvements.
Februmy 3. 2013 - Fined Appendix 1 (14 a/23)
CIN OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - B
Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Jefferson St.)
Description
The proposed improvements include the installation of a second westbound travel lane, bike lane median curb,
sidewalk median island landscape and irrigation, on the north side of Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street east to the
property line of Renaissance La Quinla.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT I TOTAL
COST COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$15,000.00 $15,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1500
$30.00 $45,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
2800
$2.00 $5,600.00
6
8" CURB 8 GUTTER
LF
900
$15.00 $13,500.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1500
$12.00 $18,000.00
8
4.5' AC OVER 6" AB
SF
19250
$5.00 $96,250.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
11
!SIGNING
SF"
19250
$0.250 $4,812.50
12
ISIDEWALK
SF
5,200
$5.501 $28,600.00
13
LANDSCAPE
SF 1
6,000
1 $6.501 $39,000.00
14
IRRIGATION
SF 1
6,000
$4.001 $24,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $317,562.50
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $31,756.25
Ins ection/Testin /Surve : $30,962.34
City Admin: $15,878.13
Contin enc : $59,423.88
Total Estimate: $455,583.10
Notes: 1. The improvements are adjacent to undeveloped parcels. It is anticipated that future conditions
of approval for parcel development would obligiate the developer to construction a portion of the
street and pedestrian improvements.
Fe6rumy 5, 2013 - Finn!
Appendix 1 I Li of 23l
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Primary Arterial - B
Project: Avenue 50 (North Side, West of Madison St.)
Description
The proposed improvements include adjusting the centedine profile to meet urban drainage standards, constructing
a second westbound travel lane, curb and gutter, one-half center median curb, median island landscape and
irrigation, and sidewalk in the existing City owned right of way adjacent to the Polo Estates.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
I TOTAL
COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1800
$30.00
$54,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
1175
$2.00
$2,350.00
6
8" CURB & GUTTER
LF
1175
$15.00
$17,625.00
7
8" MEDIAN CURB
LF
1100
$12.00
$13,200.00
8
4.5" AC OVER 6" AB
SF
40000
$5.00
$200,000.00
9
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00
$1,600.00
10
ADJUST WATER VALVE
EA
4
$300.00
$1,200.00
11
SIGNING & STRIPING
SF`
40000
$0.250
$10,000.00
12
ISIDEWALK
SF
7,200 1
$5.501
$39,600.00
13
LANDSCAPE
I SF
6,600 1
$6.501
$42,900.00
14
lIRRIGATIOr
I SF 1
6,600 1
$4.001
$26,400.00
SUB TOTAL:
1$471,875.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
Desi n: $47,187.50
Inspection/Testing/Survey] $46,007.81
City Admin: $23,593.75
Contin enc : $88,299.61
Total DIF Eligible Cost: $676,963.67
Feb, luny 3, 2013 - Final .-1 ppendLa 1 I16 of 131
CITY OF LA QUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: PrimaryArterial
Project: Avenue 52 (660LF West of Madison St. to 1,3201-F West of Madison St.)
Description
The proposed improvements include the an additional westbound travel lane, bike line, curb and gutter, and
sidewalk adjacent to the south property line of the Polo Estates.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT ELIGIBLE
COST DIF COST
1
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$25,000.00 $25,000.00
2
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$20,000.00 $20,000.00
3
DUST CONTROL
LS
1
$18,000.00 $18,000.00
4
UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
CY
1000
$30.00 $30,000.00
5
SAWCUT PAVEMENT
LF
660
$2.00 $1,320.00
6
6" CURB AND GUTTER
LF
660
$15.00 $9,900.00
7
4.5' OVER 6" AS
SF
14000
$5.00 $70,000.00
8
ADJUST MANHOLES
EA
2
$800.00 $1,600.00
9
ADJUST WATER VALVES
EA
4
$300.00 $1,200.00
0
SIGNINGAND STRIPING
SF14000$0.25
$3,500.00
1
F21
SIDEWALK
SF
4000
$5.50 $22,000.00
SUB TOTAL
1
1 $202,520.00
1/15/2013
Estimated Soft Costs:
11
Design:
Inspection/Testing/Survey:
City Admin:$1Q126.00
Contin enc :
Total Estimate:
$20,252.00
$19,745.70
$37,898.56
$290,540.26
Februmy 5. 2013 - Final Appenda 1 (17 aj23)
CITY OF LA OUINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Type: Modified Secondary Arterial
Project: Avenue 58 Extension
improvements, previously known as the Jefferson Street extension, include construction of a new roadway fir
us 58 south to the northern border of the proposed Coral Canyon development (Tract 33444). The roadway will
tructed to Modified Secondary Arterial B standards. The roadway cross section was approved as part of Gen,
Amendment 2008-112. The total estimated cost of the project is $3,728,519. These costs are shared by I
:ant developers (Quarry and PGA West) and the Transportation DIF. The cost shares are presented below.
Note:
1. Detailed cost estimates were prepared by the Engineer (Bighorn Consultants) of the Coral Canyon Development. The
detailed estimates are available for review within the City of La Quints Public Works Department.
1/15/2013
Feb,vmy J, 2013 - Finn!
Appendix 1 R8 of 231
CITY OF LA NVINTA: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) COST DETAIL
Project Typc SeaAsa Atonal
1/1512013
Eaumaea san cwla:
Feb, u vT S, 2013 - Final
TataI DIF EIi ible Cosh'.
Phase l SubTotal.
S95]4W.00
32050,003.00
Olber Oeoelo er Cgnlnbullon:
Ppase 11 Suh Total'.
53 fi5i 05256
$3.488,55250
Phaeelll Suh Tolat
Sf 98]]5250
$1172,51053
TOTAL CONSTRUCTIOrv:
56.600,30300
$4.]5ll63.03
1/1512013
Eaumaea san cwla:
Feb, u vT S, 2013 - Final
TataI DIF EIi ible Cosh'.
$5,952544.08
Sbea Nwnes Oerelo erRre
32050,003.00
Olber Oeoelo er Cgnlnbullon:
E249353.50
Total coat
se.zsz.Dzz55
Appendix 10 9 of13/
DGEHNTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
FEBRUARY 2013
LOCATION TOTAL COST DIFSHARE
DIF COST
COMMENTS
Ave. 50 Evacuation Channel $7,500,000 25.00%
$ 1,875,000
Aesmms CVAO Farediang M75%
Dune Palms Whitnvater River $17,510,000 25.00%
$4,377,500
Assume CVAG Funding at 75%
Adams Street Whitewater River $13,500,000 11.50%
$2,700000
Assu,ms HBP Fund. at 88.5%
Ave. 50 All American Canal(Widening) 52,400,000 12.50%
5300,000
Assmms CVAG FUMiri, at 75% add
Indio Natant W 125%
Jeffermn Street lnterehange Improvements $60,578,200 2.84%
$1,720,421
Assmms CVAG FuMi,mat 75%: ledm
Fiddling., 57% of25%: Count, FmMing
at 1%01`25%and la QuiWe DIF Snare
m27.04%of42%0r25%
TOTAL
$10,972,921
Februrny 5, 2013 - Fined Appendix 1 (20 of 23)
FUTURE TRAFIC SIGNALS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
FEBRUARY 2013
Location
Type of Improvement
Cost
New
Development
Share
New
Development
Coat
Dune Palms Rd & Corporate Center Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Washington St. & Via Sevilla
Traffic Signal
$430.000
50%
$215,000
Washington St.& Lake La Quoin Dr.
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Calco Bay & Avenue 47
Traffic Signal
$430.000
100%
$430.000
Eisenhower Dr. & Montemma
Traffic Signal
$430,000
100%
$430,000
Eisenhower Dr. &Sinaloa
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison St. & Ave. 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison St. & Ave. 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Madison St. & Ave. 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monrce St. & Ave. 52
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
25%
$211,500
Monroe St. & Ave. 54
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
50%
$423,000
MormaeSt.&Airportblvd.
Traffic Signal
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Monroe St. &Ave. 58
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
50%
$423,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 60
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
100%
$846,000
Monroe St. & Ave. 61
Traffic Signal
5430,000
75%
$321500
Monroe St. & Ave. 62
Two Lane Roundabout
$846,000
25%
$211.500
Orchard & Ave 50
Traffic Signal
5430.000
25%
$107,500
Jefferson & Dunbar
Traffic Signal
$430,000
25%
$107,500
Jefferson&Ave 52
Three Lane Roundabout
$1,000,000
27.04%
$270,400
Jefferson & Ave. 53
Traffic St al
$430,000
50%
$215,000
Jefferson & Ave. 54
Traffic Si al
$430,000
75%
$322,500
Citywide Central Control
TOTAL
$1100,000
27.04%
$297,440
59,291840
Estimated Cost ofTraftic Signal
Construction:
$350,000.00
Engineering:
$35,000.00
Construction Engineering:
$27,000.00
Administration:
$18,000.00
Total Estimated Cost:
$430,000.00
Estimated Cost oft -lane Roundabou
Construction:
$650,000.00
Engineering:
$100,000.00
Construction Engineering:
$63,500.00
Februmy S. 2013 - Final Appendix 1 (21 of 231
FUTURE SOUND WALLS
DEVELOPER FEE CALCULATIONS
OCTOBER 2012
LOCATION
DISTANCE F)
ESTIMATED COST
East Madison at Trilogy
700
$192,115
Estimated cost of future sound wall in Developed Areas
$192,115
Feb, =,T 5. 2013 - Final dppendi> 1111 of 231
CITY OF LA QUINTA
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS
OCTOBER 2012
PROJECT
TRACT
IMPROVEMENT
DIF ELIGIBLE
COST
AVENUE 50 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
MOUNTAIN VIEW CC
30357
(1/2 MEDIAN)- BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND
$627,972
MADISON
14 -FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
ESPLANADE
29323-1
IMPROVEMENTS -FRED WARING BETWEEN
$103,083
PORT MARIA ROAD TO JEFFERSON STREET
AVENUE 50 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN-
RANCHO LA QUINTA
29283
$239,000
PARK AVE TO ORCHARD LANE
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN
(1/2 MEDIAN) - MADISON STREET TO 1/2
MADISON CLUB
33076
MILE EAST OF MADISON STREET AND ONE
$669,920
LANE(INSIDE LANE) SOUTHSIDE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN -
HIDEAWAY
29894-2
ALL AMERICAN CANAL TO MADISON
$1,344,690
STREET
AVENUE 52 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
MOUNTAIN VIEW CC
30357
NORTH SIDE ALONG DEVELOPMENT'S
$112,723
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY -BETWEEN
JEFFERSON/ALL AMERCIAN CANAL
AVENUE 52 RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN -
CLUBHOUSE
SDP 2002-730
ALL AMERICAN CANAL TO MADISON
$463,894
APARTMENTS
STREET
DUNE PALMS ROAD -LANDSCAPED
MEDIAN ISLAND (HIGHWAY I11 TO SOUTH
SAM'S CLUB RETAIL
SDP 2005-824
$228,697
END OF PARCEL 3, 1126.7 FT NORTH OF AVE
48)
MADISON STREET - TWO LANES AND
MADISON CLUB
33076
MEDIAN BETWEEN AVE 52 AND 54 (MEDIAN
$4394,665
LANDSCAPE ON FUTURE SEPARATE
AGREEMENT)
AVENUE 54 - PAVED PAINTED MEDIAN
MADISON CLUB
33076
LANE AND ONE INSIDE LANE (MADISON
$524,010
STREET TO MONROE STREET
TOTAL DIF ELIGIBLE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS
$5,708,654
Februmy 5, 201 J - Final Appendix 1 (23 of 23)
APPENDIX -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 eighth edition was used as the primary. Peak hour trips are identifies 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 generated 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 (P.M. 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. in. 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 types is published by the Sand
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in its publication "Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the
San Diego Region" Although the trip lengths presented in that publication do not apply specifically to La
Quints; it is believed they reasonably represent trip lengths for various types of development.
CVAG has completed trip lengths on the 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 every 1.975 miles for residential (1:1.975). The CVAG trip length study
indicated a one mile commercial to one mile residential ration (L I)
In order to estimate the ratio for trip lengths in the City of La Quinta's City map was prepared with one mile
radius permeating out from the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 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 include destinations of leaving town, food shopping, and trips to
school, and across town trips. The estimate for the ratio in La Quinta was one mile for commercial for every
1.667 miles for residential (1:1.667). These numbers are closer to SANDAG calculations. Therefore, the
published SANDAG numbers were utilized for average trip lengths.
February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix - 2
APPENDIX -3
COUNTY ROAD CONVERSION TO URBAN ARTERIAL
Former county -owned roads, that were designed and constructed to a county road standard, are
sufficient to continue functioning as designed if the land use served remains unchanged, but the
existing roads typically lack key design attributes to accommodate simplistic conversion to an urban
arterial street by just adding a new lane to the existing pavement and installing curbs to redirect
drainage flow. Specifically, higher intensity land uses increase the number of trucks using the
roadway (ie a higher Traffic Index). As a result, urban arterial streets must have a sturdier structural
section than the existing structural section encountered on county roads serving low intensity land
uses. Often, the structural section can be augmented and bolstered by simply overlaying the existing
pavement with additional asphalt paving.
The other key design attribute that must be addressed is the flowline gradient in the gutter. County
road design procedure disregards the flowline gradient aspect because the county road standard
does not include a curb that contains drainage flow in the street to convey it to a relocated discharge
point. Instead, the county road standard simply has a centerline profile and a crowned pavement
cross section that sheds storm water falling on the pavement to the side of the road. Thus when
curbs and gutters are added to make the street function like an urban street, the flowline gradient
becomes a critical design aspect that cannot be ignored. La Quinta has 0.5% as its standard
minimum allowable flowline gradient in the gutter. The minimum standard applies to former county
roads that are converted to urban arterial streets, as well as new onsite local roads, unless waived by
the City Engineer in writing with substantive reason. In order to implement the required flowline
gradient, the centerline profile must be revised. The latter aspect typically requires the roadway to be
reconstructed wherever the existing centerline profile is less than 0.5%.
February 5, 2013 - Final Appendix - 3
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
OVERALL FEES PLUS CVAG TUMF
FEBRUARY 2013
CONSTRUCTION
LA OUINTA
TYPE
RANCHO
1,300 SF House
DESERT HOT
TYPE
PROPOSEDFEE
INDIO
MIRAGE
COACHELLA
SPRINGS
1,300 SF House
$8,731.44
$19,925.44
$8,967.44
$18,044.31
$10,940.44
1,700 SF House
$8,731.44
$19,925.44
$8,967.44
$18,044.31
$10,940.44
2,200 SF House
$8,731.44
$19,925.44
$8,967.44
$18,044.31
$10,940.44
3,000 SF House
$8,731.44
$19,925.44
$8,967.44
$18,044.31
$10,940.44
4,000 SF House
$8,731.44
$19,925.44
$8,967.44
$18,044.31
$10,940.44
500,000 SF General
Commercial -50 Acres
$5,038,280.00
$2,687,094.25
$2,925,780.00
$4,188,445.00
$6,383,780.00
20,000 SF Office -
1 Acre
$211,328.00
$131,657.25
$259,308.00
$228,216.20
$295,548.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$340,784.00
$321,748.25
$149,184.00
$149,184.00
$149,184.00
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$327,996.00
$314,145.25
$157,951.00
$107,596.00
$474,328.00
20 Unit Townhouse;
1,200 SF $90k/Unit
$152,916.00
$46,377.00
$146,036.00
$275,739.40
$225,763.00
20 Unit Apartment
Building 1,000 SF $2M
$123.316.001
$49,986.001
$146,036.00
$275,739.401
$225,763.00
Note: Fees presented above include the Coachella Valley TUMF.
CONSTRUCTION
TYPE
CVAG TUMF
1,300 SF House
$1,837.44
1,700 SF House
$1,837.44
2,200 SF House
$1,837.44
3,000 SF House
$1,837.44
4,000 SF House
$1,837.44
500,000 SF General
Commercial -50 Acres
$1,588,780.00
20,000 SF Office -
1 Acre
$103,748.00
200 Acre Golf Course,
10,000 SF BLDG, 10
Acres
$149,184.00
100 Room Hotel; 45,000
SF 10 Acres
$107,596.00
20 Unit Townhouse;
1,200 SF $90k/Unit
$25,536.00
20 Unit Apartment
Building 1,000 SF $2M
$25,536.00
February 5, 2013 - Fina( Appendix - 4